We live in strange times. Recently several religious conservative bloggers have suggested that the word “slut” is a slur against all women, and that it is a type of profanity. My best guess is they feel that sluts know that what they are doing is wrong, so even using the word in general is cruel to their already convicted hearts.

Yet at the same time we have sluts literally marching down the street in major cities worldwide. The sluts have responded to the hesitancy of traditional conservatives to use a word they feel is cruel as an invitation to normalize sluthood.

Following the line of thought that the concept of slut involves a deeply unfair double standard, others have tried to make the term gender neutral. Susan Walsh offered a gender neutral definition of the term in her post What a Slut Is (see link for her full definition):

a. A slut is a person of either sex who regards sex strictly as a physically pleasurable activity. Sex in and of itself does not include an emotional, spiritual or practical component. Love, emotional intimacy and reproduction are sometimes associated with sex, but are in no way necessary or even desirable as a precondition for sexual activity.

As I mentioned in my post Defining sluthood I’m sympathetic to why Susan wants to do this, but I think it misses the very essence of the concept. Slut is sex specific. Calling promiscuous men sluts just doesn’t carry the same punch. Similarly, when Susan uses the term manwhore in her post Manwhores: For Casual Sex Only, she is trying in vain in my opinion to recast the concept of whore.

As others have pointed out, the reality is that there isn’t a double standard; there are simply different standards applied to men and women. If this makes you so angry you want to braid your leg hair and go on a slutwalk, I’m afraid I can’t help you. However, I can at least offer an explanation for why this is the case.

While there is no perfect opposite concept of slut for men, perhaps the closest is the concept of coward. In both cases the terms denote a loss of honor and a lack of trustworthiness. In addition, both are directly related to one’s fitness for marriage. No woman wants to be married to a coward, and no man wants to be married to a slut. Both words pack a similarly damning punch; yet for some reason there is no hue and cry that the word coward be erased from the English language.

Consider the case of the Titanic. Molly Brown entered a lifeboat and once underway suggested that they return to try to rescue additional survivors. While her compassion for others and her desire to rescue them was undoubtedly noble, no one questions why she was willing to accept the offer of the lifeboat seat in the first place. She was given preference while over a thousand men and no small number of children were one way or another denied a seat. Unlike the men on board, she knew no one would even for a second consider her a coward for accepting a seat on a lifeboat.

This brings us to the other great objection to the word slut; the definition of the term tends to be somewhat malleable. Those who object to the word demand that an immutable standard be offered, otherwise the term must have no meaning. Exactly what percentage of the varsity basketball team can a girl blow before she is considered a slut? What if she loves them all? How many hot dogs in the baby-maker is too many? They often choose cases in the gray area and demand either blanket acceptance of female promiscuity or condemnation of a woman who isn’t perfect. If you won’t condemn the woman who lost her virginity to her College Boyfriend and then went on to marry (and remain married) after perhaps a few slow motion steps on the path of serial monogamy, you can’t think of any woman as a slut. Pretty soon, this demand to not recognize the concept of slut morphs into a moral imperative; man up and marry those sluts! Any man who fears marrying a slut is deemed a coward.

While sluts are busy marching down the street demanding approval for actions many Trad Cons are unwilling to even label, feminists and many Trad Cons are busy calling men cowards for failing to offer their lives for women (including sluts) they don’t have any obligation to in a shipwreck where over 99% of the souls survived. Never mind the fact that at least two men on board Costa Concordiagave their lives to save others, and never mind the fact that many of the men chose to protect their own families instead of offering the romantic gesture so many feminists and Trad Cons crave. They wanted the Full Titanic Experience, and those cowards deprived them of it!

As I’ve pointed out before, the expectation that lifeboat seats were off limits to men isn’t universal. It isn’t generally recognized outside of the Anglosphere, and even there it is a relatively recent concept which has already been obsoleted by feminism. Similarly, the Spartans had a code of honor which by today’s standards is quite striking. Consider the well known (if historically questionable) admonition of Spartan mothers to their sons:

“With it or on it.” We’ve all heard that Spartan mothers said it while giving their sons shields before their first battle. With it = victorious hero; on it = fallen hero; without it = coward.

There is also the famous tale of the Spartan boy who concealed a wolf cub under his cloak to avoid being caught stealing. He is said to have maintained a steady expression while the wolf cub gnawed on him, and his crime was only discovered when he finally fell down dead from his wounds.

No mother today would tell her son it is better to be killed in battle than to return without victory, and likewise we don’t hold up the Spartan youth in the story as an example of virtuous manhood to be emulated. Still, we do have a basic expectation of men when it comes to courage. The concept of coward isn’t made meaningless by the fact that the boundaries can change over time. The fundamental concept endures because there is a real reason for it. Men who won’t defend what is important aren’t a good fit for marriage or fatherhood. Likewise, while the concept of slut may be somewhat malleable, the fact remains that promiscuous women aren’t a good fit for marriage.

One could also point out that to some degree we do judge both men and women based on both concepts. For example, at some point a man with a history of promiscuity is undoubtedly not a good fit for marriage. Ironically most men would probably be more strict in where they draw the line here than most women (by their actions) do. Likewise while no man would consider a woman unfit for marriage because she failed to give her life for strangers, it is possible for a woman to display so little ability for self sacrifice that she isn’t fit for marriage. But none of this changes the underlying fact. Men and women are judged by different standards, and these standards are grounded in the reality of what marriage is about. A husband who won’t defend his family when the need arises is as unfit for marriage as a wife who won’t protect her own chastity when tempted.

There is another side to this, and this is the cruelty to young women resulting from pretending the concept of slut either doesn’t exist (by refusing to use the term) or is somehow unfair to women. Young women are being lead astray by those who deny or minimize the concept and making decisions which will very often harm them and their families later. There is nothing cruel about being honest about the reality of the term and the importance of her own chastity. The cruelty in fact comes from those who would aid the seducer by providing false comfort that she won’t be judged by her actions. In this case the very malleability of the term increases the cruelty. If we want to be kind to young women we should make it clear that men and women still will judge them based on their chastity, and that what feels like the wild west morally could very well change in short order. We have pushed the boundaries of excusing female promiscuity past all practical reason, and this makes a rebound of the pendulum all the more likely. Speaking the truth now will protect women who might otherwise be caught spending their youth expecting one standard and being judged when they decide to marry by a very different standard.

262 Responses to Slut!

The right of men to marry who they desire according to whatever standard they desire is not one that is under any significant assault, even by slut supporters. You are taking issue with what is basically a PR campaign. Like all PR campaigns, you have to be wise enough not to mistake a turd sprinkled with MSG for Sunday dinner. This PR campaign is also an attempt to solidify the interim sexual constitution (girls, like guys, have the opportunity to sow their ‘wild oats’, then settle down when they have ‘matured’ sufficiently to appreciate the benefits of marriage). The interim sexual constitution (Marriage 1.5, as it were) is breaking down under its own lack of sustainability, the weight of which is caused not by men’s misbehavior, but by women’s. It remains to be seen what will replace it.

Consider this post a public service announcement, or something like advising about a speed trap on CB radio.

Slutwalkers are going about it all wrong. If they wish to make female promiscuity an acceptable behavior, they must remove the consequences from men. The reason chasitity in women is valued is because men want to be assured that the children they are sacrificing themselves for are actually theirs. Even though we have the ability to conbduct testing to determine this, it is not considered acceptable. A man who requests such testing (especially if married) is condemned for not trusting his wife, girlfriend, etc. Even after tests show that a man is not the father of a child, he may also still be forced to provide support. Male contraception and choice for men should also be supported by slutwalkers as these would also be instrumental in removing the consequences of female promiscuity from men. As long as men have no reproductive rights, female promiscuity will not be acceptable to men as a whole.

The right of men to marry who they desire according to whatever standard they desire is not one that is under any significant assault, even by slut supporters.

I disagree. See Mrs. Darwin’s response to GKC on the issue. Note that when GKC continued making a logical and biblical case for this Mr. Darwin ultimately banned GKC from the blog (ban since revoked) and locked the thread. See also the man up and marry those sluts admonitions so common in the papers from traditional conservatives (examples here and here). In the case of the latter they do this without actually addressing the reality of marrying aging career women who came of age in the hookup culture, but they still admonish men to marry these women without a word about chastity.

The real problem is a woman’s ability to hide her sexual past and entrap a man with marriage who would not have married her had he known of the truth. If you did this while signing any other form of contract, the contract could well be voidable by the other party as there was misrepresentation on your part. Of course women have already nailed that avenue shut, haven’t they?

The issue here is that society has gutted marriage, the concept has been destroyed by the laws of the land. There should be no problem with a woman being a slut as long as a man has full knowledge of her past and can act to save himself and his future children by deciding not to marry. By destroying the ability of men to be aware of who they are intending to marry, men now have very little recourse to choose their mates wisely.

The word ‘slut’ also holds a great deal of power when used to raise women. This is undeniable. If you as a father want your daughters to be married and live in a stable home and have children of their own, you know that their behaviour needs to be the opposite of a slut. By destroying the ability of fathers and men to shame by the use of the word ‘slut’ you have taken away from them the means to defend their daughters against those who would destroy their chastity and chances of finding a good man.

ANY male insecurity gets shredded in feminist agitprop. That is where, I believe, the biggest danger comes from in the whole ‘marry the slut, already’ meme.

“So what if Pansie has already slept with Wally Whopper and Gordon Godeep? She’s choosing you, Modest Marvin, to share her bed now. That should count for something, shouldn’t it, stud? Don’t be intimidated, that’s so wussy”.

I had to navigate that sort of crap myself 35 years ago, at the dawn of the Sexual Revolution. I can’t imagine it has gotten any better since then.

It is a cruel joke on a young girl today. Things are going to fall apart very fast for feminism. The cultural inertia will have large numbers of 5-6 year olds today paying a heavy price for todays empowered sluts and enablers.
BTW before it went down for maintenance the spearhead had an article up on the Catholic Church doing away with feminism.

By significant, I mean legislation or executive order. Civil action, even. Not propaganda.

To my knowledge, no man can be forced to marry any woman in any jurisdiction I am aware of. According to Mrs Darwin, ancient Israel had different standards. I wonder if a sufficiently motivated young woman coud not have taken advantage of the Deuteronomic regulations to snare herself a better mate than her father could have obtained for her. I don’t doubt it.

Nevertheless, propaganda can be ignored, whatever the source, and you are doing an admirable, if rear-action, job in countering it.

“The reason chasitity in women is valued is because men want to be assured that the children they are sacrificing themselves for are actually theirs. ”

That sums up the main reason a man sleeping around isn’t as bad as a woman sleeping around. No amount of sleeping around by a husband will leave a wife wondering if the child she is carrying is actually hers.

All of this, and Dalrock’s excellent essay and observations, stems from the feminist and societal insistence that men and women are equal and equivalent in every respect except their secondary sexual characteristics. They are not. Men and women are very different and are created differently in their natures, their thought processes, and manners of doing and being, all to serve very different purposes.

Man’s primary function is to spread seed and protect that which is his. That’s why men bristle so hard at being called cowards. It’s also why one of the lowest insults you can slap a man with is to call him a coward, a sissy boy, a wussy.

Woman’s primary function is to bear children to propagate the species and submit to one man. That’s why women bristle so hard at being called sluts. It’s also why “slut” or “tramp” or “hussy” or “whore” is one of the lowest insults you can slap a woman with.

The “equality” myth and the “slut” insult are also why the campaign to normalize and celebrate slutty behavior exists. Sluts want to act like sluts, but don’t want to be judged for it. They also think that slutty behavior is simply a behavior which has no long term consequences. They believe that they can continue acting as sluts for as long or short a time as they wish, with no adverse consequences. They believe they can stop anytime they wish, and then be immediately marriage ready simply because they have become more selective in the men they sleep with, or for a time stop sleeping with men altogether so as to prepare for a husband.

“I as a woman can do anything a man can do and I have the absolute right not to be judged for it. Anything less is unfair.”

“If I’m a slut, then all the PUAs and players are sluts too.”

“You can’t call anyone a slut unless you define it. Otherwise, it has no meaning.”

“I used to sleep around, but I don’t do that anymore. I’m ready to settle down and get married. Wait a minute — where have all the good men gone?”

One third of a woman’s long term value to a man is her integrity. Short term hormones aside, A man cannot love a woman more than he can trust her.

A woman who is willing to trade her sex appeal for anything other than love has low integrity. There are degrees here, a woman who isn’t shy about getting her itches scratched is different from a girl who is sleeping for money or flirting for a promotion, but they have the same effects to the guy: “is she doing this because she loves me or because she wants something.” The girl who shows cleavage to get out of the traffic ticket is destoying her relationship with her man the same way that the girl who hooks on the side is, just in a lesser degree. Regardless of who breaks up with who, relationships do not last when they were never strong.

Calling women sluts used to be society’s way of shaming women against sabatoging their own relationships. Of course, as the value of even having a strong relationship with a man has declined, so too has any shaming power the term might have once had.

And see, I thought I was quite pure, maybe even prudish, for resolving not to have sexual intercourse before marriage, which I upheld until my marriage at 28. I even got the impression my own parents thought this was rather prudish. They seemed most concerned with making sure I knew sex was a good thing and I should feel comfortable with my sexuality. But I was a Christian, and I definitely didn’t want to get pregnant outside of marriage. I did almost everything else though, and no one ever told me this might come off as rather slutty to some men. No one ever told me that my “marriage market value” would be highest if I was as chaste as possible in every way. I didn’t receive good advice from anyone, and so I guess I assumed men would feel about me as I did about them. That some history of physical intimacy would prove my desirability. Never once did I realize that women are turned on by preselection, but men aren’t. My kids will know these things, how much better and less painful just to know these things.

Although I know Dal was looking at the bigger picture, I’m not sure that the Slut Walk phenomenon was initially an act of pride or even an attempt to ‘take back the word’. In context you have to remember the incident that sparked the Slut pride; a cop publicly admonishing and warning women that if they “dress like sluts they’re going to inspire rapists.”

Not unsurprisingly the militant ‘sluts’ and their vagina-ed male identifiers saw an opportunity to take it to the street. The original parade’s message was as Deti describes, an attempt to reinforce the equalist idea that all humans are blank slates irrespective of sex, and as such women should be comfortable dressed in any way they choose and men will have the temerity to control their lustings. We’ll show that fat cop what’s what and prove the equalist point by dressing slutty to show that it makes no difference – rapists will be rapists in spite of our attire.

Obviously the truth of it is different, but from that act sprang the germ of Slut Pride. Now it wasn’t enough to simply prove the equalist mantra, the Sluts wanted respect. Whereas before women, as they will, who made themselves up in order to attract male sexual attention could be confused with actual sluts, now the self-proclaimed Sluts (for slut sake) made sluts of every woman. Ergo the push for Slut acceptance became extrapolated to encompass all women.

The contradiction in this is evident. If women should be embraced for dressing and acting in any manner, and men should be expected to control themselves, how then are women to be expected to differentiate themselves when they are in fact trying to get male sexual attentions? As with most feminine social conventions, Slut pride is an attempt to level the playing field, in essence, if all women are ‘sluts’ then no woman is a ‘slut’, thus placing sluts in the same sexual market value as women who are not (at least self-identified) sluts.

I believe you underestimate Mothers if you think that no Mother today would say to her warrior son: ‘either return victorious or not atall’ – even though they may put it slightly differently – after all Soldiers no longer bare Shields, a device conveniently the size to be borne on.

My parents were desparate for me to fight in Viet-Nam. You may wonder why any parent would want to send their child to War, to which, I would merely reply that you did not know my parents. I, am perfectly happy to be seen as a Coward and frequently admit to being so, as I do now. Mercifully, my country were not combatant at any stage in your war in Viet-Nam, thus saving me being forced into either being volunteered i.e. bullied into the British Army or conscripted into it.

“There should be no problem with a woman being a slut as long as a man has full knowledge of her past and can act to save himself and his future children by deciding not to marry. By destroying the ability of men to be aware of who they are intending to marry, men now have very little recourse to choose their mates wisely.”

I agree with the first sentence but not sure about the second. I really don’t think you can blame the feminists for the bolded portion—that has a lot more to do with increasing urban density and the anonymity that comes with it. A woman who was a slut in NYC can move across the country, pose as a virign, and no one would be the wiser.

“The word ‘slut’ also holds a great deal of power when used to raise women.”

True. The word also holds a great deal of power when wielded by women. I’ve heard other girls use the term more than guys. There’s a reason for this.

I see what you’re saying about the Slutwalk, but maybe your point overcomplicates it a bit. You can argue that the slutwalk had much simpler objectives: unattractive women getting sexual validation. From the many photos I saw there were very, very few physically attractive women at these marches. I was even at the Boston Slutwalk—and they were fuglies. All forty or so of them.

Sluthood is really the only currency that physically unattractive women have for gaining the attentions of desirable men. The march was, in large part, about protecting their only real trump.

But you nailed it regarding the feminist – traditional conservative pincer movement. As usual.

Slutwalking is one of the last manifestations of the Garden Curse, the “desire” part of which has been devastating to human females — far more than preggers-pain

yah not only ramped their sexual desires WAY up, but their jealosly of maleness itself, and most importantly the female psychological subjugation to men

initially the male/female were probly about equivalent in “desire for each other” but that changed pronto after the original FemRevolt, which continues to this moment (saw someone recently refer to Genesis/Eden as a “story” but it is NOT a “story”)

huh? how about some Construction Wolf Whistles and Male Gazing and Sexual Harrassment headed my way?

no? I cant make the cut? OK then, we’ll march thru the streets of the West to protest our terrible patriarchal Rape Culture and its Slutnaming, b/c if males wont pay attention to us we’ll destroy maleness and male-female relations out of rage, selfishness, and pure vengeful spite . . . and then brand ourselves in Mammy Medea as Edgy Heroines for marching proudly against Those Evil Men (that we despise but, you know, actually are dying to touch and boink and love)

the “desire unto the man” that God inflicted on Woman has always been the primary motivation for feminism, and feminism has always existed — since the rebellion, this planet was given over to demons (cuz that’s what the Little Lady demanded!) and has been ruled de-facto by colective female interests since

dalrock — While sluts are busy marching down the street demanding approval for actions many Trad Cons are unwilling to even label, feminists and many Trad Cons are busy calling men cowards for failing to offer their lives for women (including sluts) they don’t have any obligation to in a shipwreck where over 99% of the souls survived.

yeah

the (false) Trads and Righties (plus fathers of daughters) are Adam-analogs: theyve submitted to female power/control/interests, often using the “churches” and “Christianity” to back up their cowardice and self-serving

“family” is the number 2 excuse these guys use for their bullshit behavior

tho the FemLeft makes the policy, the Trads/Repubs are the enforcers of Feminine Will, esp in the US — tho of course their Enforcement only lands on the backs of OTHER men, as the “Conservatives” rush to do the Little Lady’s bidding, protecting her Wonderfulness against Those Evil Men (and there is a LOT of money in Protecting our Grrland! good solid Careers!)

Slutwalking is just anothe tool of mass psychological manipulation by the Unquestioned Experts at manipulating and self-victimizng: the western woman
.

I see what you’re saying about the Slutwalk, but maybe your point overcomplicates it a bit. You can argue that the slutwalk had much simpler objectives: unattractive women getting sexual validation. From the many photos I saw there were very, very few physically attractive women at these marches. I was even at the Boston Slutwalk—and they were fuglies. All forty or so of them.

I agree with you on the nature of the women in the photos. I had to wade through quite a number of them to find the one I ultimately used. Very painful. Still, the photo I used is from the original slutwalk in Toronto. This is where the movement began.

I still believe that the nature of the protest was against the very idea that men can judge them. They couldn’t stand the knowledge that men were even thinking the thought. I found a quote from one of the founders to this effect which I shared in this post:

It was evident that if you’re going to have a representative of the police force come out [and say that] then that kind of idea must be still running rampant within the force itself and that retraining really needs to happen to change that mentality.

I agree that it is foolish to believe that they were ever really about stopping rape. Even Feminists have to know that tarting around carrying a sign that says consent is sexy isn’t going to change the mind of a rapist. It was in my opinion always a temper tantrum in reaction to the fact that men can still think the word even if they don’t say it, and the fact that no matter how many women’s studies courses they take and how liberated they declare themselves, it still wounds them to the core.

That is very strange that your parents wanted you to fight in Viet Nam, especially since as you point out it wasn’t Britian’s fight. You were not a coward for not wanting to do so. When I turned 18 my father was very reluctant for me to register with selective service (part of the then and now dormant US draft). I needed to do so by law and to get a job, yet he was very much against the idea. This even though my father is proud of his own service including combat in Viet Nam for which he was decorated multiple times. It wasn’t political either; my father is a huge fan of Reagan who was president at the time.

“I did almost everything else though, and no one ever told me this might come off as rather slutty to some men. No one ever told me that my “marriage market value” would be highest if I was as chaste as possible in every way. I didn’t receive good advice from anyone, and so I guess I assumed men would feel about me as I did about them. That some history of physical intimacy would prove my desirability. Never once did I realize that women are turned on by preselection, but men aren’t. My kids will know these things, how much better and less painful just to know these things.”

Yep. Men and women are not interchangeable and don’t approach sex the same way. Too bad your parents did you a disservice by not instructing you about such things; though it seems to have worked out for you.

I have used the term “slut” around my home a bit. I think my daughter knows what I think of sluts, and she has got the message.

I am an older bloke and not an American. But I will say what I have said before. If she can’t wear white, think hard before you wed her. Those other guys aren’t in her body any more, but they are still in her mind.

I wonder if some men are more averse to sluttish behavior than others? My parents, for example, had premarital sex and went on to get married. Maybe this is why they didn’t think it was a big deal? I had boyfriends who seemed turned off when I engaged in anything other than kissing. One boyfriend, however, wasn’t turned off at all and dated me for a year, and then went on to marry the lady he cheated on me with (he cheated on me by having full-on sex with her).

Lana, I am probably unusually touchy on the topic. I am often surprised at what some men will accept. My wife did some things for me before we married, but she had had little experience before me. And I decided to keep her a technical virgin until marriage. It was not optimal. But it was better than marrying a non-virgin. I am the fussy type.

Did your parents have premarital sex with each other, or with still others before they met? Regardless of the answer, keep in mind your parents like everyone else are thoroughly marinated in feminism and its messages that women can do anything and everything men do, including engaging with impunity in premarital sex with multiple partners just like men do.
They were also told that there are really no barriers to premarital sex.

Some men get turned off after sex (or whatever the girl is willing to give him) because, well, once they’ve gotten what they came for, there’s nothing left to get. He’s seen all you’re willing to offer and once you’ve given all that up, there’s no reason for him to stay.

Men get turned off after rapid escalation to sex because there’s no more challenge. Or, they discovered the girl was not very good sexually. Sometimes he disappears because he wanted someone with integrity and she showed she had low integrity.

Slutwalking, like endless Campus Rape Protests (on campuses where the last actual sexual assault often occurred decades ago) is about power — the sexual component is secondary

the Garden Rebellion was about power and control, not sexuality

God gave Earth to human men to administer, he created woman to H-E-L-P the men (in obedience)

Woman (with lots of assistance) instead decided to take over and assume leadership and control

and here we are . . . still

dalrock — I still believe that the nature of the protest was against the very idea that men can judge them.

you believe right

having completed the Takeover socially, politically, economically, and spiritually, women now want to assure that males cannot even voice objection to female behavior — not even ONE MAN

ONE GUY objected, and witness the vast aftermath

folks — that is TOTAL control, and we are just about there (in US criminal courts, as in family courts, the word of a male counts for essentially nothing, the word of a female is equated with Truth)

power

absolute control of male autonomy and expression

“It was evident that if you’re going to have a representative of the police force come out [and say that] then that kind of idea must be still running rampant within the force itself and that retraining really needs to happen to change that mentality.”

yep that’s the heart of it all right

all mere males must be Retrained to suit any female’s demand or fancy of the moment, no matter how psychotic

note — all this Slutwalking fell out and became a Great Western Femomenon after a MALE COP suggested females take a little responsibility for their own vile behavior

ONE man objected . . . and the Grlls immediately organized, while the entire Western Medea lit up like New Years at Babylon Square

not just one man, tho, but a COP

women are v cunning, and the feminists quicky orgainzed b/c rank-and-file police are the ONLY institutional threat to the west’s gynocracies

everybody in powerful positions in govt, media, edcation, commerce, religion are already on-board the matriarchies, and reform will NEVER happen from the top or upper-middle– these folks are v comfy and content with iniquity and wealth

only at the grassroots BOTTOM (like here!) can any real reform begin . . . and our gynolands cannot risk even ONE male — ESEPECIALLY A COP — who appears to be straying from the Reservation

these are the guys who do the dirty work on other boys and men for the empowerment, enrichment, and delight of Western women, and even the slightest dissension is dissension too much for our Mistrersses

the one thing frightening the matriarchies is if the workaday cop starts questioning his Protection and Service of the Western female and her societies — that must be shamed and stamped out IMMEDIATELY, lest other men also begin to question exactly who and what they are serving . . . and what that false service is doing to their eternal souls (damning them)

thus, the response from women and manginas was swift and loud and v public, using the same protest/screeching tactics that have brought them Total Victory in every other sphere of life over the past amerikan century

his fellow cops should have IMMEDIATELY rallied around him, including his Chief

but of course they didn’t b/c theyre hypocrites and cowards . . . looking out for their own fat asses and full-retirement jobs

. . .great at intimidating and punishing men; helpless before their wives and daughters and gynocracies

I wonder if some men are more averse to sluttish behavior than others?

Without question. This is part of the maleability of the term which confuses so many. For young women this may be seen as reducing the risk of sluthood, since they can always find a man who doesn’t care about her past. While the statement is largely true, what the young women can’t know at the time is if the man she wants will be ok with her past. The fact is that women are most attracted to men with experience and options, and both tend to make a man less willing to overlook a woman’s past when considering marriage. This will matter very much to her future self, but could seem insignifigant when she is young and tempted to spend the coin of her sexual power.

“I still believe that the nature of the protest was against the very idea that men can judge them. They couldn’t stand the knowledge that men were even thinking the thought. I found a quote from one of the founders to this effect which I shared in this post:

‘It was evident that if you’re going to have a representative of the police force come out [and say that] then that kind of idea must be still running rampant within the force itself and that retraining really needs to happen to change that mentality.'”

But the “that” that the cop had said was that dressing provocatively was a factor in rape. The idea that motivated the first Slutwalk wasn’t the fact that men view certainly forms of dress as slutty, but that dressing that way plays a role in rape. The women themselves obviously understand that there are different ways to dress, because the “walkers” are clearly going out of their way to dress in a slutty manner. The “mentality” they wanted changed was not that there is a difference between dressing slutty and dressing not slutty, but that dressing slutty led to rape.

“I agree that it is foolish to believe that they were ever really about stopping rape. Even Feminists have to know that tarting around carrying a sign that says consent is sexy isn’t going to change the mind of a rapist.”

I think that completely misstates the issue. “Stopping rape,” per se, had nothing to do with it. Nor did “changing the mind of a rapist.” The walkers were looking to change police, and, presumably, the broader public’s, mind about the notion that dressing like a slut leads to rape. Their claim is that dress has nothing to do with it, and that rapists rape without regard to clothing.

“It was in my opinion always a temper tantrum in reaction to the fact that men can still think the word even if they don’t say it, and the fact that no matter how many women’s studies courses they take and how liberated they declare themselves, it still wounds them to the core.”

Of course it always easy to simply denigrate people who disagree with you, accusing them of having “temper tantrums,” but there is simply no content to that type of claim. And, if they felt “wounded to the core” about being called a slut, why did they parade down the street in slut clothing and call their activity a “slutwallk?” The whole point of the activity was that women who normally don’t dress this way (and thus, if they really are sluts, at least hide it somewhat) were doing so in response to the cop who said (as they see it), that dressing like a slut equals “asking for it” when it comes to rape. And, of course, they could have protested the cop’s comment in the conventional, non slutty ways (rallies, speeches, demonstrations, non slut marches, etc). (And, indeed, there is some evidence that the original promoters actually requested that women dress in their normal attire.)

Or they could have left out entirely the emphasis on the term “slut” and its “rehabilitation.” This, which the founders of the first slutwalk did in fact say, instead, could have been the sole issue:

“Being in charge of our sexual lives should not mean that we are opening ourselves to an expectation of violence….”

In other words, women should be able to be safe as they walk down the streets no matter how they dress, and leave dressing like a slut or not as a matter of individual choice with no political implications whatsoever.

Indeed, internal, feminist critics of the slutwalkers see them as embracing the term “slut” too much and too readily. As giving in to the madonna/whore dichotomy, as pariticipating in the “pornfication” of women, and that, unlike the “take back the night” marches, slutwalks actually provide objectifying, sexualized images of women for men’s voyeuristic titilation, and that they marginalize women who object to sex crimes and want to be active in the fight against them, but don’t feel comfortable calling themselves “sluts” or dressing like them.

And many of these feminists claim that the term “slut” is indeed beyond rehab. The slutwalkers see the term “slut” as the feminst equivalent of “queer,” which was “reclaimed” by those whom it was used to denigrate, and became a badge of pride, while the feminist critics of the term see it as more as the feminist equivalent of “nigger,” which, at least among the more Establishment type of Black persons, has never been, and never can be, separated from its use as a hate term.

Ironically, these feminist critics are in line with your thiking.

I think your original claim:

“Yet at the same time we have sluts literally marching down the street in major cities worldwide. The sluts have responded to the hesitancy of traditional conservatives to use a word they feel is cruel as an invitation to normalize sluthood.”

is simply wrong.The walkers responded to a man in a traditonal paternalistic role (a cop) who DID use the term, not to some general trend of trad cons who DON’T use it. The cop said:

“I’ve been told I’m not supposed to say this – however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.”

In general, I think your view is correct…that women who are sluts are viewed by men, and rightly so, as not so great potential wives, just as women rightly view men who are cowards as not so great potential husbands. Neither standard is applied to the other gender, and it is false to pretend that it is, or should be.

On the other hand, there often seems to be tendency in your writing to force a certain oversimplification of facts so as to make them fit whatever argument you are making at that moment. Yes, trad cons are reluctant to call a slut a slut, and blame men who are reluctant to marry them. But that really has little or nothing to do with the slutwalk phenomenon, which has its own dynamic apart from the overall behavior of trad cons.

A woman can always find a man who doesn’t care about her past — for the purposes of sex. Marriage is a different story. Previous sluthood reduces her options. Once she’s racked up a partner count, she starts limiting her options to:

1. Lying about her past in the hopes of securing an attractive man with options, and run the risk he’ll eventually uncover her lie (he almost always does)

2. Lowering her standards and “settle” for a man to whom she isn’t attracted or does not love.

3. Forgoing marriage altogether for failure to find a suitable partner, or waiting too long while the clock ran out.

None are particularly attractive for a woman. Probably explains increased divorce rates to some extent.

Option 1 is unattractive because it runs the risk of divorce and the man’s marital unhappiness, and is essentially fraud in the inducement.

Option 2 is a disservice to the man and the woman. He gets a wife who he is attracted to but she is not attracted to him and isn’t in love with him. This is grossly unfair to him because it increases the risk of divorce, affairs and cuckoldry. It is unfair to any children she has because she risks depriving her children of a father.

Option 3 is ultimately a disservice to her. She could have been a good marriage partner, but through poor choices or failure to act, she has deprived herself of a man who could have been a good husband.

Interesting post, but for me, the jump in comparison between slut and coward seemed a little sudden. It was hard for me to see the connection, or the logical progression. Unless you’re saying that women who behave like sluts are cowards for not waiting.

It would be nice to know your thought process in reaching cowardice as a comparison.

I find it interesting that fornication and profanity (I think in the religious sense, not verbal sense. See KJV) and Esau are all connected in Hebrews 12:16. I think this connection is easily forgotten. And this connection is true in the spiritual sense as well as the physical.

Is it cowardly to be like Esau? Probably. But it is similar cowardice for both men and women, which are both tempted to sell out the perfect future for the satisfactory present.

When men do evil to get ahead in the world, and love the world more than God, are we not cowardly spiritual sluts in God’s sight? Perhaps the connection between cowardice and sluttery is more like a synonym rather than antonym.

Despite 100 years of agitprop ‘open conspiracy’ and ‘weapons of mass instruction’ this loaded word or meme is an insurmountable obsticle to the propagandist’s designs.

For propaganda to be effective it needs two polarized sides (royalty-serfs, wealthy-poor, capitalists-socialists, white-black, opressed-free etc.) to create a dialectic and one side must gain an advantage for there to be a synthesis.

To the masculine slut invokes a visceral response that simply cannot be rationalized away and to the feminine it is too inimical to their hyperagamy to be a badge of honor. Hence the bind.

The only method left on the social change agent’s shelf is to normalize the term to females and hope men will follow suit. That’s why they use expressions of ‘freedom, empowerment, equality’ (similar to Bernay’s use of freedom sticks to get women to smoke) or try to create male equivalents, ‘manwhore, cad, player, mimbo’.

It’s interesting that Bible’s most severe admonition is ‘whore’, I guess there is a Roissy quote about the god of biomechanics that should apply here :)

By the way, it was funny to watch all this liberal guys in mainstream media (i.e. Piers Morgan in CNN) criticizing Rush Limbaugh for calling Sandra Fluke “a slut”. They said that Limbaugh should “respect women”.

No conservative had the balls to answer: “But the S-word is not an insult anymore!!! Look all these Slutwalk women: they are proud to be slut. By calling her a slut, Limbaugh was PRAISING Ms. Fluke!!”

It would have been a memorably moment: calling liberals about their shit. Not in America, where conservative are sissies.

Of course it always easy to simply denigrate people who disagree with you, accusing them of having “temper tantrums”

In fact, it was not only a temper tantrum. It was a mixture of temper tantrum with attention whoring. An unimportant cop says something not politically correct during an unimportant crime prevention lecture at an unimportant University in a Canadian city (have you ever heard something about York University?) and, suddenly, thousands of women around the world, from Boston to New Delhi, from NY to London, start parading with whorish clothes and showing their fat rolls and their disgusting taste.

It’s hard to imagine a male equivalent but something close would be the following. Imagine a woman is giving a lecture on divorce in an unimportant University and says something along the lines of: “Men who are falsely accused of rape shouldn’t complain, they should have kept it in their pants”. Then, thousands of men around the world start parading and showing their dicks outside their pants to protest this statement and to prove their right to take their dick out of their pants whenever they want.

The comments about the photos of the women here are very telling and track in 100% with my own personal experience throughout my life. I am not so erudite as many here so I will not attempt anything too analytical. I will simply tell you this, I’m a low alpha male. I remember prior to the days of the slutwalking there were still in my college years the “Take Back the Night” rallies in college campuses. I attended one once because I was an impressionable and malleable 20 year old mind. I took a quick and unscientific survey of the female crowd. Again, 20 yo frat boy male brain at work here– “Hrmmm, not too many hot chicks here. I’d fuck her, her, and her…” So basically about 10% of the women were on my radar, 90% not so much. What were all the hotties doing during these nights? Getting pounded by alpha male frat boys and loving every minute of it. I lived in this world, I saw it first hand. You are not going to see beautiful women at Slut Walks the way you will not see them at the Take Back the Night rallys. They actually, well, you know, LIKE being the center of attention of all males. Imagine that…

“Yeah, Fluke, so dignified.
“Translation: ‘I must have cock. I publicly beg for money for cock.’”

Wrong.

Fluke attends Georgetown Law School. As a condition of being a student there, the school requires that the students carry health insurance. The requirement extends to the student purchasing a plan from a particular private insurance company. But the school does not allow the company to offer, under the qualifying plan, any policy that includes contraception. The only other way for a student to satisfy the health insurance requirement is to have private coverage, and very, very comprhensive coverage at that. Such insurance, for a single person, not part of any “group,” is prohibilitively expensive. In reality, a student at Georgetown must purchase a policy under the required group plan.

Georgetown itself pays NOTHING towards the cost of the plan. The student premiums constitute one hundred per cent of the revenue the insurance company gets to provide the insurance.

What Fluke was advocating for, Rush Limbaugh, et al, to the contrary notwitstanding, both in front of Congress and at the school, was for a policy that does include contraceptives be made available under the required plan. She was not asking for Georgetown to pay for her contraceptives or her insurance. She most assuredly was not asking, as per Limbaugh, for the “taxpayers” to pay for her contraceptives or her insurance. She was asking for, as the person who has to buy the insurance, to have an option of buying a plan that includes contraceptives.

She was not begging for money, for cock or anything else. She simply wanted the school to stop restricting the range of policies which the company could offer under the plan. The company itself doesn’t care one way or the other. It has no objections to contraceptives, and would be happy to offer policies that cover it, particularly as they could charge a little more for them. The other students at the school would not be hurt, as they could choose a policy that covers contraceptives or one that doesn’t. And the school would not be hurt, except perhaps in it amour-propre, because it pays nothing for the insurance anyway.

Now it is true that Fluke chose to attend a school knowing what its rules were. In my view, that does not mean that she is bound to not criticize any aspect of the school. And it is also true that a case, a very weak case, in my opinion, could be made that by allowing the insurance company to offer a policy that includes contraceptives the school would be “associating” itself with something it doesn’t agree with. I say the case is weak for the simple reason that it is not the school’s money that is involved. If the school pays a professor for her services, and she spends some of that money on contraceptives, that is not an instance of the school being forced to associate itself or give its imprimator or whatever to something it does not agree with. Same thing here, or perhaps even more so, as the money that Fluke would be spending was NEVER Georgetown’s.

That’s what l’affaire Fluke was really all about….a student who wanted a choice in what the health care plan that her school forces her to buy should cover.

“By the way, it was funny to watch all this liberal guys in mainstream media (i.e. Piers Morgan in CNN) criticizing Rush Limbaugh for calling Sandra Fluke ‘a slut.’ They said that Limbaugh should ‘respect women.’

“No conservative had the balls to answer: ‘But the S-word is not an insult anymore!!! Look all these Slutwalk women: they are proud to be slut. By calling her a slut, Limbaugh was PRAISING Ms. Fluke!!’”

The problem with this is that it assumes that liberals in general or in the mainstream media accept the premise of the slutwalkers. Many do not. And many feminists don’t either. Another problem is that Limbaugh clearly meant it as an insult, irrespective of how the slutwalkers see the term. A third problem is that Limbaugh’s criticisms made no sense…he claimed that Fluke was a prostitute because she “wanted to be paid for sex by the taxpayers.” When the reality was that she merely wanted an option in the health insurance coverage that she herself has to pay for, and that the notion that the taxpayers had anything to do with it was yet another degree of separation from reality. Limbaugh was also wrong in that Fluke wasn’t even asserting that she in particular needed this coverage, but that it should be an option for those who wanted it. And, he was also wrong in that he seemed to assume that the cost of contraceptives had something to do with the frequency of sex or the number of partners. In reality, birth control pills and the attendant necessary medical visits cost what they cost, regardless of number of partners or sex acts. A woman having sex once a month with her fiance on the pill would be spending as much as the town floozy, also on the pill.

“No conservative had the balls to answer: ‘But the S-word is not an insult anymore!!! Look all these Slutwalk women: they are proud to be slut. By calling her a slut, Limbaugh was PRAISING Ms. Fluke!!’”

Another problem is that Limbaugh clearly meant it as an insult, irrespective of how the slutwalkers see the term.

11:18 AM on May 12, 2011
“…The problem with the words, “women should avoid dressing like s.luts in order not to be victimized” lies in the word ‘s.lut’ and the attitude that our society has around it. S.lut is a word thrown at you for being a female sexual being in this society. It is a word used to hurt, to shame, to define female sexuality as dirty and wrong, while male sexuality is deemed natural and morally excusable. S.lut is a label that comes from this double-standard and used like this is completely inappropriate.”

Undertone: “it’s not faaaaaiiiirrrr”, a la Dalrock’s past post on why some want “hookups to be ‘fair’.”

“She was not asking for Georgetown to pay for her contraceptives or her insurance. She most assuredly was not asking, as per Limbaugh, for the “taxpayers” to pay for her contraceptives or her insurance. She was asking for, as the person who has to buy the insurance, to have an option of buying a plan that includes contraceptives.”

Does she have a right to compel other students to subsidize her choice?

“Does she have a right to compel other students to subsidize her choice?”

That’s not what she was asking for. What she wanted was that there be an option for a contraceptive inclusive health insurance plan. And all health insurance plans, indeed all insurance policies, involve a certain amount of cross subsidization. That is the whole theory of insurance, that some folks will have a lot of expenses and that some will have less. The insurance company charges a premium that will spread the costs around and still allow it to make a profit.

In any event, persons who are forced to buy health insurance, it seems to me, should have some say as to what that insurance covers and what is it does not. It is not all atypical or outrageous that such mandated plans, whether at work or at school, have various options as to what is included and what is not (with, of course, varying costs).

And, the school was not really concerned about the students, or even about costs, per se (particularly as it was not paying anything for the insurance), it was simply trying to force its idealogy on all of its students. Georgetown is a Catholic school, yes. But its law school is not limited to Catholics, neither its professors and other employees nor its students. It makes a point of portraying itself as cosmopolitan and open to all. That being the case, I see no reason why it should stand in the way of the independent choices of its students when it comes to health insurance inclusions.

Is the notion that conservatives should have backed up Linbaugh’s baseless insult simply to make a cutesy poo, “ironic” point? Or was the call for conservatives to do so itself merely “ironic?” In which case, why bother making it?

Calling a slut a slut is not an insult, ruddyturnstone. It is a description.

The irony in my statement lies in the fact that liberal are saying for forty years that being a slut is OK, that the double standard is wrong, that women have to embrace sexuality and have as many partners as they want, and people walk by the streets with banners saying “I am a slut and I am proud”.

And then, when somebody calls “slut” a woman, they get outraged. Don’t you say being a slut is great? Why so much outrage? Why do you care about an outdated patriarchal morality? Does somebody get outraged when she gets called “a feminist”?

I know that an ideological-driven person, like you, won’t see the irony, but, believe me, many people do. I write for this other people because no fact will convince you.

In which case, why bother making it?

To show that liberals, in fact, don’t believe their own bullshit, that’s why. The way you don’t believe either, because otherwise, you wouldn’t write longs emails about things you don’t care (such as the “slut”).

Liberals can ramble and ramble about having got over patriarchal morality and so on and so forth. They can go to the streets with banners telling “Slutwalk”. The time you say “You’re a slut”, they show that, deep inside, they are not that unconcerned about a woman being a slut. They react like nineteenth century damsels whose honor has been violated.

If liberals believed their own ideology, they would say: “Yes, Sandra Fluke is a slut. So what? Being a slut is good, you Neandhertal. Women experimenting their sexuality is a good thing and the more, the better. You want to oppress women’s sexuality and have women barefoot in the kitchen, yaddah, yaddah”.

But they don’t say that. They say: “Slut! You don’t respect women!” (By the way, the concept of respecting women related to their sexual behavior strikes me as patriarchal). Deep inside, liberals don’t believe their own BS.

Never believe what a woman is saying. Even though they say they want to eliminate slut shaming, the real reason they protest is this: To gain male approval.

See, they precieve sluts as desired by men (which is true to a large degree) but are not slutty naturally from within, therefore they try to resolve this gap by protesting to convey the message ” I’m a slut too ” ie ” I’m desireable too “. Thats why you would hardly see any hot girls protesting. This is because hot girls don’t need to gain male approval, they already have it.

Women will deny it because its embarassing, men won’t believe it because its irrational. But its the truth. They are mad because of rejection.

But they don’t say that. They say: “Slut! You don’t respect women!” (By the way, the concept of respecting women related to their sexual behavior strikes me as patriarchal). Deep inside, liberals don’t believe their own BS.

that females must be respected by males based on their femaleness is insane, unhealthy, and totalitarian, not to mention profoundly unbiblical

My last comment, as most of my comment, has grammar mistakes. I apologize. English is not my mother tongue

“That’s not what she was asking for. What she wanted was that there be an option for a contraceptive inclusive health insurance plan. And all health insurance plans, indeed all insurance policies, involve a certain amount of cross subsidization. That is the whole theory of insurance, that some folks will have a lot of expenses and that some will have less. The insurance company charges a premium that will spread the costs around and still allow it to make a profit.”

Is that option possible without other students also participating in that option?

Lana, historically, it is believed the vast majority of couples who marry have sex before the marriage. The Puritans, used as examples of sexual restraint actually seldom married until the woman was pregnant, to avoid childless marriages.

My own cynical opinion, based on years of observation, is the marriage is doomed before it starts if the chemistry isn’t strong enough to involve pregnancy before the marriage. Heh, heh.

###
I see we have the usual nonsense about a person’s individual desire for something must over-ride the religious principles of any organization. How disgusting.

It is sad most women have such a pervasive alcohol problem in this country. I’ve heard girls casually mention going home with completely random men because they wanted somewhere to sleep. This is really very typical in any town here in Britain.

It’s a product of late night binge drinking and the unhealthy party culture. It is probably the shittiest form of mainstream culture on this planet. As it stands, if you are a man looking for healthy and traditional woman, stay away as much as possible from British women.

I posted this article to my Facebook wall and it garnered the followed comment by a feminist:

I think it’s odd that anyone would think that men can’t be sluts. They totally can. In their case, it’s synonymous with stud, which means there’s still misogyny wrapped around its application toward women, but yeah, men can be sluts.

I am relatively new to MRM and manosphere, but I can see that she is regurgitating the same two arguments that feminists use: One, that there is a double standard, and, two, that it is about hating women’s liberation.

As a 21 year old traditional Christian man, at first I tried to find an intellectual type of girl but I soon realized my kind does not fit in the Western world. I now seek knowledge and ways to become better at things I enjoy, while working towards a career at the same time. None of those wimpy,

I’d like a woman who suits me, wherever she may be I’ll eventually find her and make her mine. I might have to look in a different country to find an intelligent, loyal, dutiful woman. And not obsessed with drinking and social success.

I found this place after I had realized I overstayed my welcome over at Hooking Up Smart, my guess is that Susan Walsh’s female sensibilities were hurt by my criticisms. Which is understandable since the majority of contributors there are women and it would ruin their atmosphere.

I would argue that option 2 is the cause of most of our divorces now.
Most women were unable to resist a few rides on the carousel. And since a woman can get a much better short-term deal than long-term, they are now ruined for the men that they actually can get.

I’m pretty cold-hearted toward women these days because of this. And I am mostly unmoved by female tears and displays of “sadness”.

I think we are still a few years away from the waves of reckoning that are coming. The current crop of “where are the good men” articles and “man up” editorials are the first ripples of the tsunami.

Personally, I will not refrain from mockign spinsters right to their shriveled faces.

“Personally, I will not refrain from mockign spinsters right to their shriveled faces.”
Professor Ashur you know what it’s going to take to end this madness. My favorite line and goal as an MRA is involuntary childless spinterhood.

[i]”I think we are still a few years away from the waves of reckoning that are coming. The current crop of “where are the good men” articles and “man up” editorials are the first ripples of the tsunami.”[/i]

But are sheltered, middle aged spinsters really to blame for the break down of traditional marriage? I admit they have expectations that anyone with a half-brain or okay reasoning would not hold. However it appears they happen to be in the wrong place and the wrong time, and are paying for it.

I’m still disseminating all this new information, so maybe someone can fill me in. Out of intellectual curiosity, are spinsters encouraging young women to seek out short-term associations with individuals as a necessary component of modern society? And are lonely spinsters synonymous with feminists?

This is just anecdotal. I’ve known a lot of women who’ve talked about their sex lives — GFs, friends, friends of friends. I know two — TWO — women over the course of my 43 years who were virgins when they married. Just about every woman I know has a premarital sex history, and just about all of them admit to at least one pump & dump. (Bear in mind this is what they are willing to admit to.)

“And since a woman can get a much better short-term deal than long-term, they are now ruined for the men that they actually can get.”

I know women shouldn’t settle. I prefer to call the decisionmaking process in deciding on a spouse and whether to marry “compromising”. “Settling” to me means she gave up something but didn’t get something in return, i.e. she married a man she has no attraction for and really doesn’t love. She married him to get a man, or to get a babydaddy. See, she gave up herself, but her perception is that she didn’t really get anything back, or got back a lot less than she otherwise would have received.

In the realm of intergender relationships (and all of life, really), compromise is much better. When she compromises, she gives up something AND gets something of value in return. How well one can compromise depends on one’s bargaining position. In seeking marriage, for women that depends on looks and sex partner status (how slutty she is or isn’t). A woman who has not carouseled it is in a heightened bargaining position. The sluttier she is, the hotter she needs to be to strengthen her bargaining position. Conversely, if she is not hot, she better not have ridden a lot of horses.

The hierarchy probably looks like this:

1. Hot virgin
2. Hot slut
3. Homely virgin
4. Homely slut

(2 and 3 might be interchangeable depending on the man assessing her)

The hot virgin is in the best position to demand the best marriage partner (at least traditionally). She has the most to bargain with (and is usually quite acutely aware of this). The homely girl who gave it up for pump & dumps has little to offer so she is in the worst bargaining position.

The point is: In selecting spouses, one goes through a series of negotiations, so to speak, where some things are accepted, others discarded; some things are minor quibbles and others dealbreakers. There are a number of things a person must have in a spouse, and a number of traits that can be done without. The end product is a result of that compromise. The outcome depends on how much or how little you had to offer at the outset, and what your “dealbreaker” requirements are. No one gets every thing they wanted. But you have a better chance of getting what you wanted, or more of what you wanted, if you are at a good starting point.

From this we can see that sluts are hurting their negotiation starting points and making it much harder for them to compromise. They have to give up more and more to get anything. Many of them probably have to give up so much to get a man they are not compromising, but are “settling”. They are probably also pressuring their BFs into marriage with breakup ultimatums — “we’re getting married or I’m breaking up with you, and since you’re a beta, we all know you’ll be going for months with no sex if I break up with you.” So they get married. And this is how you know you’re dealing with a woman who knows she is running out of options and time.

Compromising is better than settling, but many women are putting themselves in the position of either “settle, or nothing”.

I do not wish to get involved in the legalities of the case, or the redefinition of Rape by White-Knighting Judges, or what looks like anti-white racism, but consider:

The woman had drunk herself to intoxication and had then secured the attention of two premier league footballers – indeed the convicted guy plays for his country (she must have had a very high SMV) and then rather than being regarded as she surely is – a slut – finds her reputation washed white by the legal system because she had buyers regret as to the nature and extent of her obvious sluttiness and regretted her self-inflicted intoxication (which is perhaps what had enabled her in the first place to lose inhibition enough to achieve her dreams of double Penetration by two soccer stars). So on the one hand pre-Rape, she is strong and empowered and not to be judged for her provocative demeanor, (you go grrrrl) and not to be judged a slut; but post Rape, by which time her slut credentials are clear for all to see she is entitled to victim status because two guys (who could have bought or pulled any really hot chick, being as they are both millionaires and young and fit and soccer stars) responded to her ‘Yes’ but should not have done so, as they should have realised that Yes meant No, – or at least that her No should be disregarded (yet the reason women often drink is so to get up courage to lose inhibition so as to say yes), – and are responsible for her freely chosen behaviour, and thus she is clearly not a slut. Neither before or after is she a Slut and the English Legal System will not find any woman a Slut no matter her behaviour. The learned Justices are thus exactly the same as those SoCons and Xtians referred to in some of Dalrock’s articles who wish to neutralise the word Slut.

I found this place after I had realized I overstayed my welcome over at Hooking Up Smart, my guess is that Susan Walsh’s female sensibilities were hurt by my criticisms. Which is understandable since the majority of contributors there are women and it would ruin their atmosphere.

Believe me, I “get” it. The point is that not all liberals speak with one voice. The notion that slut is not an insult is not universal. Sure, the slutwalkers say it’s not, or try to, but they hardly speak for everyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh.

As a side point, maybe we could retire the notion that everyone who disagrees with something simply MUST not “get it.” Very little is said here, or anywhere else for that matter, that is so hard to understand.

pb:

“Is that option possible without other students also participating in that option?”

Other students at GU, besides Fluke, most certainly did want to participate in such a policy,

“There is no right to an education.”

OK, and? Non sequitor. She wasn’t claiming some sort of general “right to an education.” She was simply protesting a policy at her school that she thought was unfair.

Deti, different time, different country, but I knew several virgins. I agree that actually going to the altar a virgin, maybe not. But what has changed is girls now give it up for men they don’t eventually marry.

A really pretty girl with a history can still do OK, I suppose. But the vrigins I knew were often pretty girls. They probably knew their value but they were not arrogant prudes.

I have had this discussion so many times with my wife it’s starting to make me sick.

The Christian biblical standard is crystal clear and applies equally to both men and women: No sex outside marriage. Sex outside marriage is sin.

The natural reality is different. For you women, consider this:
— How often have you asked a man you’re sleeping with how many partners he has had?
— How many men you’ve slept with have asked you how many partners you have had?

For men:
— How often have you asked a woman you’re sleeping with how many partners she’s had?
— How often has a woman you’re sleeping with asked you how many partners you have had?

Why? My partner count wasn’t important to the women.
But their partner counts were very important to me.
_____________________

Both men and women can be promiscuous. But that is not the point. Women desire a promiscuous man because he is preselected and probably has good genes for reproduction. Most women desire a promiscuous man for sex and marriage, and she doesn’t really care how many women he slept with.

Only a woman can be a slut. “Slut” is pejorative. In terms of marriage, sluts are less desirable. A man cannot be a slut. He can be promiscuous. But for men, “promiscuous” /= slut.

The inherent problem with attempting to shame men who have slept with multiple women is that while a woman’s attractiveness to men reduces with a rising partner count, a man’s attractiveness to women actually rises.

On some level, women know this. That is why women are so offended by the word ‘slut’ (particularly the promiscuous Christian women who want to hide their past), whereas no man is offended if people thinks he had more sex partners than he actually did.

The attempt to normalize the penalty between men and women is female solipism of the highest order. A woman who would attempt this while on the other hand presenting herself as an ‘expert’ reveals a severe lack of knowledge about her own subject.

You can argue that the slutwalk had much simpler objectives: unattractive women getting sexual validation. From the many photos I saw there were very, very few physically attractive women at these marches.

Bingo.

Along similar lines, note how you never see a woman who is a 7 or higher in looks get hysterical about ‘all men are rapists’ and ‘there is a rape epidemic in America’. These more attractive women would presumably be the ones at real risk of rape, yet you don’t see an attractive woman expressing much worry about rape.

Ugly women who obsess over rape are doing so for similar reasons – it allows them to pretend they are actually attractive enough to get such attention, even violent attention.

Rape, of course, is the easiest of all crimes to vastly exaggerate. Murder cannot be exaggerated by 5x (where are the bodies?), but rape can.

Three excellent comments TFH – as always. I particularily like your astute observation that unlike murder, Rape can easily be created by exageration.

For myself, I should be only too happy to gain a reputation amongst men – and women, – for being a Stud, Player, Manwhore, or any other epithet you choose. What would not please me would be if it were known that my conquests were any of the following: Prostitutes, Gypsies, The over 60s, Fuglies, Fatties, Ladyboys or Sluts!

elemental
Spinsters are not a cause they are the effect. At present spinsters are voluntary be design or as a result of a choice she made.When it is a choice men make all bets are off. the “no good men” thing is spinsterhood by bad choices.The guys she wants no longer are interested in her as a wife. When she was 20 or so the guys she wants now would have married her then. She chooses to empower herself sex in the City style and 10 years of riding the cock carousel doesn’t make for wife material. What dalrock with this and many articles and many commenters are doing is shining a light on the lies. As more men become aware the no good men will be said by larger numbers of women. I myself would like to throw in a male pill so that the option of just getting pregnant is also removed .

Professor Mentu says:
April 21, 2012 at 11:54 am
“A female slut gives sex without resources in return. A male slut gives resources without sex in return. A “coward” is what a male slut is, but what I listed us what a male slut does.”

I think I should explain why I included sluts in the list of women to be avoided. A slut is by definition easy. She is a woman who has already gone round the houses several times, so to speak. Every one knows what she is like. My street cred does not improve by sleeping with her, indeed to do so may be seen by men as well as women as a sign of desparation. To reject advances by such women (they tend to be extraverts, thus drawing attention to their intentions) raises my SMV (and standing with my male friends) rather than lowering it. The guy who has slept with all the local sluts reveals himself to be like the company he keeps. He is not good marriage material, even if in the short term, as one wends one way home on yet another lonely Friday night, one is envious of his pulling-power. The true stud, however is not a man to be envied. He is in the grip of desires greater than most men and is their slave. It is more like a curse or addiction that he must feed. Frequently – I notice – guys, may have low partner counts, but their few girlfriends have been desirable (in all senses) and they tend to marry good-looking, pure women, remain married to them and achieve great success at work. In the long run they do far better than their superficially more successful, handsome and smooth male contemporaries. That at least is how I see it.

The current legal definition of sexual consent puts responsibility for the consequences of women’s slutty behaviour solely on men. At the same time consent is so ambiguous that other than abstaining from easy sex, the safest way to avoid a life destroying “false rape” charge from a remorseful woman is for men to be really nice to the slutty women who offer that easy sex up. In this way the law is forcing men to spoon those slutty women affectionately all night when men are actually dying to either leave or call the women a cab. In this way the law forces men to listen to these women patiently and earnestly, to look into their eyes lovingly, and to make sure to call, at least until out of the danger zone of a rape accusation.

We are criminalizing the scorn and disdain men once had for sluts in the feminist desire to remove all consequences of slutty behaviour. Feminism HAS triumphed here in that it is successfully reengineering society to remove any restrictions on women profiting from their use of their natural sexual assets. Sluts can freely use sex as currency for personal gratification, to obtain gifts or favors, for coercion, for self-promotion, or even for marriage, because men are losing any input on the market value of chastity.

We are criminalizing the scorn and disdain men once had for sluts in the feminist desire to remove all consequences of slutty behaviour.

Interesting point. I hadn’t considered that. I’ve seen it argued that men should take a slut out to breakfast the next morning to establish publicly that they parted on good terms. Mike at Crime and Federalism argues that men should create video evidence for the same reason.

Out of intellectual curiosity, are spinsters encouraging young women to seek out short-term associations with individuals as a necessary component of modern society?

You have to take into account that women don’t understand cause and effect well. Being emotional creatures, when logic gives them the ugly truth, they are not able to handle it, so they recur to a more palatable lie and then, they find a convenient rationalization to make the lie more plausible. This psychological process is called “the rationalization hamster”.

Spinsters who are so because of feminism don’t blame feminism or their own choices for their spinsterhood. This would be too much to handle. This would force them to admit that they are not only miserable but that their misery is self-caused (because they actively choose to take feminist decisions). So this would add guilt, shame and regret to their sadness. Too many bad feelings to handle so they have to build a more palatable rationalization.

So when spinsters wonder: “How did I end becoming a spinster?”, they don’t blame themselves or feminism. They blame men. It could be men in general (men are useless, men are commitment-phobic, men are only interested in pump and dump). It could be men in particular (Johnny was a creep, James was a cad (instead of “I was not good enough to James so he married another woman”),

Blaming men has positive psychological consequences:

– It precludes introspection: shame, guilt and regret. Blaming oneself of one’s own choices, as I said.
– It gives escape to the frustration. There have been scientific studies that show that animals who are getting an uncomfortable situation do better if they are angry and they fight.
– It softens the pain of being a spinsters. Since all men are useless, not having one is more palatable.
– It gives a convenient way to suppress sadness. When you are angry, you can’t be sad. A lot of anger is only sadness in disguise (this is also true in men, who are not allowed to express sadness publicly the way women do so anger is the only way to express sadness).

This is the cause of female anger. When I started reading about feminism, I wondered. “What happened in the early 70s who made women so angry against men? The same men that have provided for them for centuries and have gone to war to protect them”. Barring the occasional lesbian, it is a case of “sour grapes”. Women are angry because they don’t have what their foremothers considered their birthright: a provider and some kids. They are biologically wired to be miserable without that and they blame men for not having that. Previous generations of women have. The pill changed this and suddenly women were angry.

This is the reason of the “men are oppressors and marriage is oppression but I want one of these awful beings to oppress me” attitude. As I said, “sour grapes”.

So spinsters don’t make the casual link: short-term associations -> spinsterhood. So they don’t encourage or discourage that for young women. For them, they are two disconnected facts. The problem is men, who are jerks. They embrace feminism. So feminism is the only ideology who is favored by its own failure. The victims of feminism are the most ardent feminists.

– It removes the feeling of inadequacy. It’s not that “I was not good enough for an attractive men to want to marry me”. It’s that “all men are jerks so, although I’m a great woman, they didn’t appreciated me”.

It was indeed a great comment from Ethical, but I am afraid creating Video evidence will not necessarily work.

This is what happened here a couple of years ago:

A man set up CCTV in his bedroom. He brought back (separately) half a dozen women and thus filmed the pair of them in the act of sex. Now as you can imagine the video must have been pretty unerotic, with just one high angle camera. Some time later he and a woman began to live together. She bore him a child. Later, whilst poking around in the attic she came across the videos, played them and went to the Police. There was no suggestion that anyone other than the man had seen them. He is now serving five years in the gaol (the sluts involoved are suitably outraged). A I said earlier, the law white-washes female promiscuity.

It puts me in mind (I cannot resist this one) of a client of mine: I had the woman and we alleged something against the man. We said that they had never been intimate. The man sent us a Video Cassette of them having sex. It was my duty to watch the video from start to finish – and get paid for doing so – It’s a hard job but someone has to do it. Why do women lie so?

And then there was a similar case (again the woman denied intimacy and denied any permission to film the sex act) which became hard to maintain seeing as she waved at the Camera at one point. Sometimes filming works, sometimes not.

[D: Good point, and thanks for your insight. I’m not advocating it and I don’t claim to understand the legal ramifications enough to advise someone on it either way. I was merely pointing out that the argument had been made.]

And of course there’s the Hofstra case, where the cell phone video was probably the only thing that saved those young men from a wrongful conviction.

But I get what you’re saying. It’s hard to come up with a fast rule which applies well to every situation. Especially when you’re a man in a Western country and all of the legal cards are stacked against you.

Nevertheless your idea as to taking the slut to breakfast, is interesting, as it ties into your view that a woman’s preferred method of Promiscuity is Serial Monogamy.

There was that Ex of mine who although sleeping with a different man each day, told me that she did not like it if he left before morning – as if they were One Day marriages. Women may act like Whores but do not want to be left to feel as if they are Whores, – this is also very much the case with women who employ Gigollos – and if taken to breakfast, can perhaps rationalise that it is them rather than the man who is calling a halt to the relationship. Women hate being rejected; but unfortunately once a man has satisfied himself all he wants to do is dress and leave. The Law thus forces men to act ‘as if’ their intentions are honourable and the woman worth honouring – like the Gogollo one must pretend that what is short-time love really is unconditional love – with all the emotional committment that involves. This will surely drive men to avoid casual pick-up in favour of seeking out Prostitutes, where no such pretence is required. My experience of Judges – and I am thinking of the men – is that they White-Knight all the time.

Well, I would not necessarily advocate making videos of one’s sexploits. But men once again are responding rationally to conditions on the ground.

If you videoed a sex act without the other’s knowledge, and the woman cries rape, the unauthorized video could be the lesser of two evils. Consider his choices when responding to the false rape charge: “I didn’t rape her. I’ve got the video to prove it.”

Will it be:

1. Aggravated criminal sexual assault, which carries a long prison term; or
2. Unauthorized recording or “criminal eavesdropping”, which usually is a misdemeanor or a minor felony, and which can usually be plea bargained down to a misdemeanor punishable with a fine and community service.

„Similarly, when Susan uses the term manwhore in her post Manwhores: For Casual Sex Only, she is trying in vain in my opinion to recast the concept of whore.”

But why is she doing it? And why are others doing the same? Why would any self-avowed anti-feminist woman try to „recast the concept of whore”? Why would anyone supposedly dedicated to realism and truthfulness promote the false and deliberately misleading parallel between the slut and the cad? I’m asking rethorical questions, of course.

Hollenhund, as you know, the one area in which the ladies of the Manosphere are almost all deficient is in their personal sexual history. Most are reformed sluts. They had their moments of sexy degradation by alphas in their past, but now they are reformed good girls married to providers. They probably struggle with guilt and flashbacks.

So of course they point the finger at men. The real “sluts”. As if taking cock in your various orifices is the psychological equivalent of dishing it out. It’s nonsense of course.

When I was a child in my native country, no young girl would want to be friends with a slut lest she was deemed a slut too. Being a slut meant not to get married ever and not to be friends with respectable people ever. She was a social outcast. This is why there were so few sluts. I knew my first slut being 18 or so.

It doesn’t matter anyway, because it’s impossible to shame promiscuous men in the same way promiscuous women are shamed. That’s because promiscuous men don’t suffer the SMV penalties that promiscuous women do.

Even feminists cannot, at heart, deny this. Which is why their shaming language is “you’re a creepy loser who can’t get laid”, not “you’re a dirty manslut who will hump anything”.

O geez, another EPL divorce-porn fantasy book for middle-aged women, as if we need more of those:

“The Love Monster is the tall tale of one woman”s struggle with mid-life issues. The main character, Margaret H. Atwood, has psoriasis, a boring job and a bad attitude. Her cheating husband has left her. And none of her pants fit any more.
Marston takes the reader on a hilarious journey of recovery. Hope comes in the form of a dope-smoking senior citizen, a religious fanatic, a good lawyer and a talking turtle (not to mention Christo and Jeanne-Claude, Warren Zevon, Neil Armstrong and a yogi buried deep underground). And, of course, hope comes in the form of a love-sick alien speaking in the voice of Donald Sutherland.
More than an irreverent joyride, The Love Monster is also a sweet and tender look at the pain and indignity of being an adult human and a sincere exploration of the very few available remedies: art, love, religion, relentless optimism, and alien intervention.”

Congrats Dalrock, here down under The Sydney Morning Herald is one of Australia’s largest newspapers. Your definitely getting noticed, I hope you can make use of it ala Kate Bolick and deservedly get some moola from from your enevours.

lavazza1891
Cool article you found. That article is what voluntary spinsterhood looks like. With the male pill and a a larger pool of young men not sexually experienced on the red pill that will become involuntary. I could read those articles from the feminist date scene like a kid reads comic books.

“No mother today would tell her son it is better to be killed in battle than to return without victory, and likewise we don’t hold up the Spartan youth in the story as an example of virtuous manhood to be emulated.”

Well there was the white feather campaign during WWI in Britain where women shamed men into going to battle to die for them.

Sorry, I just don’t think calling anyone a slut, or vigorously defending your ‘right’ to call anybody a slut, is Christ-like. The word is promiscuous. It applies to both women and men. And women are not ‘more guilty’ of sexual immorality than men.

krakonos
Not neccesarily. Spinsterhood is consequences. Just a step, the end goal for me is an end to solid working beta men that are husbands and fathers treated with such hatred and contempt. There is no reason for an honest loyal man to “game’ his wife or to fear losing his children and being made in to a slave to a society he has done nothing but support.

Most of the ’ladies in the Manosphere’ express neither regret nor guilt about their sexual history, although some of them occasionally express regret. So I think you’re off base here. Finger-pointing doesn’t seem to be the main motivating factor here.

All the silly talk about ’manwhores’ appears to be nothing but a bone thrown to frustrated beta males and the average women who got pumped & dumped by alphas. Nothing but an attempt to make them feel better about themselves, although for different reasons, of course.

A bunch of people like Ms. Walsh are fancying themselves as the spokepersons for all young people dissatisfied with the current SMP. I’m sure she’s seeking mainstream acceptance, which is why she’s trying to get the maximum number of people on board.

The fact is, of course, as many people here already pointed out, is that the male equivalent of the slut is not the promiscuous cad but the supplicating beta male who offers commitment and emotional intimacy to any woman without demanding exclusive sexual access in return. But saying this out loud would obviously cut too close to the bone for both betas and average women. Hence the talk about so-called ’manwhores’. Needless to say, ’manwhores’ or ’mansluts’ don’t actually exist.

I was listening to Twelfth Night (broadcast last night on R3) and early on we learn that the Duke Orsino is still a bachelor but interested in a very chaste maid. That reminded me that all the desirable women in Shakespeare are chaste. I cannot recall one play by the Bard where a man is encouraged to man-up and marry those sluts (let us not forget that W.S. himself – happy 448th! – married at eighteen). The women (even Marina in the Brothel – in Pericles – is keen to protest her virginity – and as such is the despair of the Pandars). Perhaps someone better versed in Bardolatry than myself can think of an exception.

“Comments are now closed”. LOL! Entirely predictable – and looking at the quality of the female comments, probably a good thing too. If the women commenting there are average, typical Western women, I don’t want Western civilization to endure.

Höllenhund: Yeah, I don’t get it. They are not arguing against the description of reality, they are just saying that they find that reality offensive!

We can argue about the future, the driving forces, the egg and the chicken, and so on. But the facts on the ground here and now are what they are. What is difficult versus easy, and for whom, is correctly described in the article. And nobody really argues against it.

Sorry, I just don’t think calling anyone a slut, or vigorously defending your ‘right’ to call anybody a slut, is Christ-like. The word is promiscuous. It applies to both women and men. And women are not ‘more guilty’ of sexual immorality than men.

You misunderstood. I’m not defending my right to use the word slut. I already do, and don’t need to defend that. I’m explaining why it is cruel for others to deny the reality of sluts. This leads young women to make poor choices which will harm them should they later want to marry. As for the biblical word you are looking for, I believe it is “whore” or “harlot” (glad to be of service). I’m not saying women are “more guilty” of sexual immorality than men. I’m pointing out that there are different qualifications for a suitable husband vs a suitable wife. Sin (and redemption) are separate issues.

I believe that the term Slut, is what now is called a HateFact; that is to say: No one says it is untrue, but because the word Slut implies a disparagement of (some) women it is no longer acceptable to use the word. Four letter words are not used in polite society and this is one of those four-letter words.

“Sorry, I just don’t think calling anyone a slut, or vigorously defending your ‘right’ to call anybody a slut, is Christ-like. The word is promiscuous. It applies to both women and men. And women are not ‘more guilty’ of sexual immorality than men.”

Just wanted to chime in here. Please don’t take this the wrong way. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky here.

You’re apparently demanding that women be called out for promiscuity, but not without men being called out for their promiscuity too. No one here is denying that men can be promiscuous, or that male promiscuity is counter-bibilcal. Our culture calls out and criticizes male promiscuity and caddishness and douchebaggery all the time. Men are constantly being admonished, lectured and denigrated for their base sexual desires and for indulging those base desires. All we are pointing out is that women have base sexual desires too. All we are pointing out is that women indulge those desires too — and far more often than the culture points up and far more often than most women care to admit.

It’s been shown (and speculated at Heartiste and elsewhere) that women lie about their sex partner counts. Why do they do this? Because they know they’re being judged for it, and more harshly than men are. And they lie about it because they KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS WRONG. Women lie their counts down. Men are either honest about theirs or fudge theirs up. Why are women more harshly judged for high partner counts? Because the main biological function of a woman biologically is motherhood. Why should a man invest in a woman if he cannot be reasonably sure that her offspring are his? The higher her partner count, the less likely she is to make a commitment to one man and keep it, or be able to keep it. Men instinctively know this. So do women. Hence the active cultural campaign to suppress it, deny it, rewrite history, and find pseudoscience to support it.

“As for the biblical word you are looking for, I believe it is “whore” or “harlot” (glad to be of service).”

I lol-ed here. I’m not sure there is anything more biblical or religiously correct than assigning derogatory terminology to promiscuous women—despite what white knighting tradcons would have you believe.

When you say compromise rather than settle, you follow with, “Nobody gets everything they want.” This is the key comment.

Feminism has been telling women that they absolutely must get everything they want or they are being oppressed by the Patriarchy. You can have it all Girl, has been there battle cry since at least the 6os. This leads to where we are today; unreasonable expectations by women that they will be eternally and totally happy at all times, or it is some man’s fault for which he (and all men) must be punished.

Sorry, I just don’t think calling anyone a slut, or vigorously defending your ‘right’ to call anybody a slut, is Christ-like. The word is promiscuous. It applies to both women and men. And women are not ‘more guilty’ of sexual immorality than men.

Would “Promiscuous Slutty Whore of Babylon” be a better fit?

Whatever you care to name them, they are still unfit for marriage and, as has been said the umpteenth time, every Institution in the West deals in shaming men for anything and everything. Why are you and others like you so interested in protecting the honour of sluts? No one protects the honour of dads and we sure don’t want to. Please shame away at the cads. They’re not honorable or fit for marriage. Most don’t even want marriage as that would be a death blow to their inner most desire of scoring more pussy.

What you fail to realise is the word ‘slut’ still conveys such a brutal message that it hurts to the core of the woman it is used on. Why oh why, if a woman is not a slut, would she feel offended by its use? And if she is a slut and proud of it, like two uglies above, why would they even care about its use? The truth is that it’s an insult that holds merit and truth and thus can offend enough to start ‘Slut Walks’ around the world?

Repeating what Dalrock said, there was no mention of women being more immoral than men. However, it has been said on numerous occasions that an immoral woman is not fit for marriage and one of the reasons for that is the chances of her passing off a child from another man as yours.

Several commenters have pointed out the risk of cuckoldry which comes from marrying a slut. This is only one of the risks though, both historically and in the modern world. A slut is far less likely to be able to stay married, and therefore your children run a much larger risk of being deprived of the opportunity of growing up in a household with both a mother and a father. Even with massive legal and social structures in place to mitigate the impact of this on children it is arguably the largest social problem we have today. It is simply devastating to children. A man needs to consider the wellbeing of his future children when choosing a wife, so sluts are unfit for marriage even in an age of paternity testing. In addition to this, today there are the practical side effects of all of the legal and social changes implemented to make it easier to kick the father out of the home.

The West is lost. Do not look for a wife where no wives exist. Go where what you are looking for is available (possible but not guaranteed, a lot of due dilligence still required).

I am married to an Asian woman. We married when she was 25. She told me when we first met that she was a virgin, and would be a virgin on her wedding night. This was the cultural values she grew up with, and would not lower her standards for me, or anyone. All our dates were chaperoned (two years). She is still very proud and reminds me of how lucky I am to have married a virgin.

The thing that really shocked me occurred a couple of weeks before our marriage. She told me that I was the first “boy” that she had ever kissed. Even today, after years married, she still blushes if I kiss her on the lips (even a little peck) in public. This is the difference between real wife material and the technical virgins in the west.

Speaking of sluts,I was listening to a podcast about the evils of porn,the “expert” said that the increase of women viewing porn was because they felt pressured by their husbands to perform in the bedroom. His perspective on why men view porn wasn’t because men had been repeatedly rejected by their wives,but that men are just sex crazed Neanderthals. To summarize: when men view porn it’s all the MAN’S fault. When women view porn it’s all the MAN’S fault. The “expert” was David E Smith, I sent him an email letting him know what I thought.

It’s important to understand why sluts are not good marriage material, unless they have done the work to truly reform (and even then they might not be suitable for marriage).

Every time a woman has sex with a man, she bonds to him. I believe this is multifaceted and has biochemical, emotional, psychological and even spiritual components.

Sex for a woman is penetration. She is taken. She is conquered. She surrenders and allows herself to be penetrated. pierced, impaled. She takes a part of the man’s body into hers and absorbs it. The man becomes part of her, physically and emotionally. That penetration reaches her all the way to the essence of her being. Nothing else in the female experience does this to her or for her.

If she repeats this experience too many times, she continues making bonds with men as she takes them into her and absorbs parts of different men’s bodies into hers. At the same time she tries to bond with men she no longer sees (those bonds keep trying to “reconnect” to the man she’s bonded to), she is forging new bonds.

I believe that her body, soul and even spirit try to dull or blunt the pain and experience of constant bonding and breaking, bonding and breaking, by preventing the bonding or reducing its effectiveness each time she engages in sex with a new partner. Eventually she becomes unwilling or unable to sense, feel, connect or bond, because the body and soul do all they can to prevent and stunt and relieve the pain and frustration of bonds that are constantly attempting to connect and constantly failing to do so.

if the slut is to reform, these bonds that are constantly trying to connect with old partners have to be broken. Many times they are not. Some bonds are stronger than others, as with sex with a really attractive alpha. The stronger the bond, the more persistent it is and the more resistant it is to severance.

The bonds present in the form of persistent memories, sexual fantasies, flashbacks, acting out, trying to recreate intense and/or pleasurable sexual experiences with new partners, frustration when sex with a husband is not as pleasurable as it was with the alpha,..

For the slut to truly reform, her bonds to her previous sex partners have to be severed and left behind, and the wounds healed. That takes time — years, sometimes. It also takes much work. Usually, she needs help doing it, in the form of time, psychotherapy, avoidance of people, places and things that trigger her, dropping old friends, ending addictions.

Sometimes those bonds cannot be broken, usually because she simply cannot let them go. Or more often, she chooses not to rekease them, or chooses not to try doing the necessary work.

For whatever reason, women seem to have a much more difficult time with this than men do. Men seem much more suited to casual sex and don’t “bond” the way women do.

All this is why all the talk of a slut’s inability to “pair bond” with a husband. The end result of all this is a woman who is emotionally, physically and sexually unavailable to her husband. She might want to be. She may try with all her might. But her ability to connect with a man, to feel, to open herself to him, to truly allow herself to belong to him, has been so damaged or destroyed, that she simply cannot bond and has rendered herself incapable of bonding.

As a man, I can attest previous bonds can also affect men. It took me years to get over my first gf and all the things you say (persistent memories, sexual fantasies, flashbacks…) could apply to me. I didn’t bond with the following gfs the way I bonded with the first one and my body was trying to reestablish that first bond.

This is why old flames are so powerful.

The difference between men and women is that men establish those bonds when they fall in love but they can have sex without falling in love. Casual sex doesn’t produce these bonds. It is very difficult for a woman to separate sex with bonding. This is why sluts are in a trouble.

“Opus, only modern men tolerate marrying sluts. Modern Western men. Not to marry a virgin was a huge disgrace until very recently. Still is in large parts of the world.”

if you’re looking for marriage-worthy (i.e. chaste, virtuous) women, have you considered moving abroad? The only reason I still live in Europe is that London is very, very international. I would not be able to stand it if the only women available for dating were white, Western women.

Casual sex does long-term harm to most women participating, to the point where, in my observation, their quality diminishes. It’s a matter of putting your efforts into a higher purpose (marriage), and not shallow, physical desires but things relevant to relationships like moral character, and personal qualities. We live in times where people worry more about “sexual compatibility” than morals. The problem is a huge encouragement for young people to seek instant-gratification, and anything that takes a bit effort like commitment is ignored.

The reason why women are very strongly against asking about other’s sexual past, is the fact that they sleep around more indiscriminately. Douchebags (or cads if you will) don’t cause this problem. Women (let’s say liberal women) actively choose to sleep with random guys in clubs, claiming those who do not are “oppressed”. And when their biological clock starts ticking, they wish a beta would provide them with a house, financial security, and honour them.

@ Retrenched

“Even feminists cannot, at heart, deny this. Which is why their shaming language is “you’re a creepy loser who can’t get laid”, not “you’re a dirty manslut who will hump anything”.”

I would like to add that slutiness is evolution in males (positive), cultural in females (negative). Whenever I see the pattern of insisting there is a such thing as “manwhores”, it’s just a mode of protest to obscure the issue at hand.

FYI, biblically the term whoremonger is for men. I think why woman hate the double standard is because for all intents and purposes it puts them in a position where they are running for their lives from CADS who will pull out all stops to deceive her and trick her into bed with him. This is how it was for years even in the west. And if we are going to go into slut shaming we will have to go back to no premarital sex. If guys aren’t taught premarrital sex is also wrong and you have one standard for one sex and another standards for another it creates a nightmairsh situation for woman. Trust me that’s why even good girls wring their hands at the thought of the double standard. However I’m all for slut shaming if it eventually leades to a chaste society that values marital fidelity from both sexes.

No Sheera, a ‘Whoremonger’ is usually the exact opposite of a cad. A cad is an alpha or upper beta who gets laid a lot without having to pay for the services. A ‘whoremonger’ is a man who goes to prostitutes, whores or loosely owned vagina club members and pays for sex. Those kind of men also make bad marriage material. So slut, slut, slut away. Oh sorry, I meant, shame away.

FYI, no sex before marriage is the Biblical standard, thus it applies to both men and women of the Christian faith. If would seem that Christian men far and away obey this command and ‘Christian’ women all too easily give it up for those damn sexy alphas. I don’t think you would find an issue amongst Christian men for Churches to vigorously demand that there is no sex before marriage.

If would seem that Christian men far and away obey this command and ‘Christian’ women all too easily give it up for those damn sexy alphas. I don’t think you would find an issue amongst Christian men for Churches to vigorously demand that there is no sex before marriage.

Bring it on, I say!

Indeed. The fact is most Christian men are not having sex, because they are quite beta and Christian women are slutting up with the alphas. So, by bringing “no sex without marriage” to churches, they don’t have nothing to lose and a lot to win.

It’s Christian women the ones who want to sex the alphas up and still be considered “good girls” so they can land a beta provider the time they realize the alphas won’t marry them. This is why using “slut” is a Christian act of enforcing Christian sexual morality.

I believe whoremonger would be pimp not a cad or player. Immoral men were simply called fools or immoral. If a woman is truly chaste, she can’t be decieved or tricked. If she is unchaste (a slut) at heart, she will simply use the trickery as an excuse. How exactly is a woman tricked into having sex with someone not her husband? Baring rape that is.

It is irrelevant what the guys are taught about premarital sex. The women are the gatekeepers. If they withhold sex till marriage, the men will try their damnest to be marriagable.

When women are held to the same standard as men concerning bravery, honor, or sacrifice, I’ll give a crap about the ‘good girls’ hand wringing about double standards.

Terminology check: A “monger” is an old word for someone who sells something. Fair sweet Molly Malone (in the old Irish song) was a fish-monger. Also, the term is metaphorically applied to someone who spreads something around, eg., a hate-monger or a gossip-monger. Or someone who tries to start something, eg, a war-monger.

So a whore-monger is someone who sells or rents out whores…. a pimp, in modern terms. The customers are simply fornicators or adulterers (depending on their own marital status), not whoremongers.

Again, it’s not a male problem. When 1 in 4 teenage girls have an STD, you can’t avoid the issue. If women weren’t promiscuous, there would be far less rape, unwanted pregnancies and risk disease/STD. It has nothing to do with the actions of ‘players’, since women can do/justify/agree to whatever they please. The fact is, that this type of behaviour is common among women proves my axiom correct.

There are two social trends that drive these problems:

1) Women have more sex partners.

2) Women lie more.

As a Christian I fully support pre-marital sex, but it is still important to regard distinctions between sluts and players. In social terms the differences in behavioural aspects of the two are worthy of making that demarcation.

Sidenote on semi-relevant etymology: The original meaning of prude actually means “honorable woman” in old French, but today is is asociated with sexual repression and puritanism. It is used as a prejorative and generally considered a negative thing.

And Van Rooinek, you’re right, a whoremonger would be a pimp, a seller of prostitutes, not a customer. Still, the point remains. A whoremonger is not a cad, a cad has no real interest in selling women to other men for sex, but more an interest in obtaining sex from women at minimal cost.

How do you trick a chaste woman into bed? I’m pretty sure the bible has a one step plan providing 100% protection from being tricked into bed. Four words: “No sex before marriage” Even the retarded could master that simple concept. So unless this trickery involved a fake priest then it simply didn’t happen. Any woman who was ‘tricked’ into bed was NOT a chaste woman. Just the cold hard fact.

Sheera, cads succeed by targeting sluts or pushing the buttons that will turn almost any girl into a slut. Shaming sluts is about the only strategy that will work. A turned on woman has no more self-control than a man.

I agree that morally a man should also abstain from pre-marital sex. But, practically speaking, women have more to lose. They are more likely to end up having to settle and be humiliated in their own minds.

David CollardIt is the physical realities of impalement and conquest that feminists struggle with most.

Yes, because those realities vividly highlight the fact that men and women are different,
that women are not just “men who can have babies”. Therefore those physical realities demolish a fundamental premise of feminism.

Faced with a choice of reality or feminist dogma, feminists generally will reject reality.

Notice how the best way to infuriate a feminist is to forcefully remind her of her womanhood. They resent being female. Almost every feminist slogan is basically a cry of anger at her physical role.

Yes, because reality means inequality. But Marxism teaches absolute equality, and feminism is a subset of Marxism. Look how long western Marxists defended the Soviet Union – some right up to the fall of the Berlin Wall – no matter how many unpleasant facts were shoved in their faces.

Ideology is clearly a religion for such people. So perhaps I’ll start referring to feminist cant as “faith-based”…that ought to be good for a reaction, eh?

[i]Trust me that’s why even good girls wring their hands at the thought of the double standard.[/i]

Uh what? I don’t think so. Good girls (who are also smart girls) would hold men to the same standards as men hold them. That means rejecting cads and placing importance on a man being sexually pure. Any good girl wringing her hands at the double standard probably isn’t as deeply rooted in her values as she thinks and is looking for an excuse for when she eventually trips and screws up.

Well the Whore of Babylon has nothing to do with licentious women**, but is actually a metaphor. A woman (and of course, not every reference, but a good many), in the Bible is a symbol of a Church, or religious system. As for ordinary, immoral women, ‘promiscous’ is just fine.

– “Whatever you care to name them, they are still unfit for marriage”

Even is they are redeemed by the blood of Christ? Is it not possible for a ‘slut’ to find God, repent, and marry? Far as I know, there is no sin Jesus cannot blot away.

– “No one protects the honour of cads and we sure don’t want to. Please shame away at the cads. They’re not honorable or fit for marriage.”

Modern pop culture honours them, and their whole ideology, lovingly. There are different notions of what honour actually is.

– “What you fail to realise is the word ‘slut’ still conveys such a brutal message that it hurts to the core of the woman it is used on. Why oh why, if a woman is not a slut, would she feel offended by its use? And if she is a slut and proud of it, like two uglies above, why would they even care about its use?”

I’m well aware of what the word ‘slut’ conveys. And with the above statement you’ve rendered it redundant anyhow, and the very existence of ‘SlutWalks’ just confirms this redundancy according to what you’ve defined. Would that these people ‘claiming it’ respected and valued themselves. ‘Slut’, whether you’re claiming it or hurling it, is a cheap word that stirs up cheap controversy and/or cheap antagonism. Let’s all be more mature.

– “Repeating what Dalrock said, there was no mention of women being more immoral than men. However, it has been said on numerous occasions that an immoral woman is not fit for marriage and one of the reasons for that is the chances of her passing off a child from another man as yours.”

Then why reserve the more offensive and imflammatory term for women*? Cad is nothing compared to slut, yet both words describe the same actions. And as a woman, I would happily raise another woman’s child. I don’t hold children responsible for the actions of their parents.

@ Dragnet
As I’ve just told Feminsthater, women in the Bible are very often used as the symbol of a Church or religious system. A ‘harlot’ may be just that (not nearly as offensive a term as slut btw), or it could be a hypocritcal, adulterous religious institution (…as in Mother of all Harlots?…Catholic Church, anyone?)

@ Deti
– “All we are pointing out is that women have base sexual desires too. All we are pointing out is that women indulge those desires too — and far more often than the culture points up and far more often than most women care to admit.”

Point it out all you like. But you can do it with more detachment, and use more level-headed terms.

– “It’s been shown (and speculated at Heartiste and elsewhere) that women lie about their sex partner counts. Why do they do this? Because they know they’re being judged for it, and more harshly than men are.”

This just shouldn’t be the case. Judge everybody equally, and forgive them equally.

– “Because the main biological function of a woman biologically is motherhood. Why should a man invest in a woman if he cannot be reasonably sure that her offspring are his?”

Without seeming to brush over the woman’s actions – maybe because he’s a decent guy.
And now you can be snarky and sarcastic if you like. I won’t budge. I find my position to be perfectly tenable.

@ Dalrock
– “You misunderstood. I’m not defending my right to use the word slut. I already do, and don’t need to defend that. I’m explaining why it is cruel for others to deny the reality of sluts. This leads young women to make poor choices which will harm them should they later want to marry. As for the biblical word you are looking for, I believe it is “whore” or “harlot” (glad to be of service). I’m not saying women are “more guilty” of sexual immorality than men. I’m pointing out that there are different qualifications for a suitable husband vs a suitable wife. Sin (and redemption) are separate issues.”

My point is, God loves everyone. I don’t think He approves of insult-hurling that just antagonises certain groups and doesn’t really achieve anything. Sure, a girl might be promiscuous, or a ‘slut’. But that’s just name-calling. All have come short of the law. Remember that but for the grace of Jesus, we all deserve to die. And since God has been gracious to us, we should be gracious to each other.
I think you must have come across a grey-area between marriage and sin/repemption – or else what standard are you holding these women up against? Society’s or God’s? As for educating girls about the dangers of being a ‘slut’, surely advising against promiscuity is more tasteful, and just as effective. As for women being “more guilty” of sexual immorality*, and whores and harlots** in the Bible, please see above.

@Smyrna<blockquote"Even is they are redeemed by the blood of Christ? Is it not possible for a ‘slut’ to find God, repent, and marry? Far as I know, there is no sin Jesus cannot blot away…All have come short of the law. Remember that but for the grace of Jesus, we all deserve to die.

That is some Satanic, Jesus-tempted-in-the-wilderness, misinterpretation you have there. Yes, all have fallen short; all deserve to die. By your accounting then, the forgiveness of sin wipes out all traces of it in this life. When Jesus brought back Lazarus (and others) from the dead, then they should never have died again. How could they? Jesus blotted out their sins! As a matter of fact, all those at Golgotha had their sins blotted out (Forgive them, Father)–how did they all manage to die? The only explanation is that Jesus’ power over sin and death is transitory; which would mean He lost; which would mean the Adversary has won. Death is still rampant.

Forgiveness does not just ‘blot out your sins’ as if they never happened. It does not take a slut, wash away her sin, and make her fit for marriage. If she repents, her sins are forgiven by the Lord but she must still bear the onus of the consequences of those sins. Forgiveness allows a person to repent of their sins, make right in themselves what once was wrong and enter heaven to be with the heavenly father and not burn eternally with Satan. It does not release you from the consequences of those actions though. A murderer must face the might of the law, same with a thief, a rapist and an adulterer. A slut can never be made fit for marriage, no matter if she repents or not. Deti may disagree with me but I sincerely believe that they cross the Rubicon when they devote their lives to chasing cocks.

Modern pop culture honours them, and their whole ideology, lovingly. There are different notions of what honour actually is.

Oh, you’re just nuts, I get it now. Modern pop culture is not Christian and should not be followed by a Christian. Modern culture is sick, it’s one of the many reasons why blogs such as this exist. If you’re taking Modern Pop culture seriously, perhaps that’s why you having cognitive dissonance while reading this blog. In light of that, release the hold that the modern world has on you, in relation to its culture, for it is an evil that pervades every fiber of your being. I say in relation to culture because I don’t believe technology is evil. I believe God gave us a brain and intended us to use it. Therefore it is up to us to use technology either for good or for bad.

And as a woman, I would happily raise another woman’s child. I don’t hold children responsible for the actions of their parents.

Just a quick FYI. We’re not talking about a man who marries a woman who already has a child by another man. We’re talking about either a woman who gets pregnant, can’t get married to the father and therefore decides to have sex with another man to pass off the pregnancy as his. Or a married woman having an affair and getting preggers and then passing off the child as her husbands without him having knowledge of the affair. If you think that is fair and just, please don’t talk about Christianity because you have zero clue.

canecaldo

Either that, or you don’t have the slightest idea of which you speak.

Pretty much sums it up. She’s using shaming tactics once again. Getting those naughty men in line, instead of holding women accountable for their own actions. You understand, of course, that it’s easier to scold men for saying naughty and immature things than it is to place the blame where it belongs, on generations of women who want nothing more than to shift the consequences from themselves to the men in their lives. Nothing Christian about that I’m afraid.

– “Forgiveness does not just ‘blot out your sins’ as if they never happened. It does not take a slut, wash away her sin, and make her fit for marriage. If she repents, her sins are forgiven by the Lord but she must still bear the onus of the consequences of those sins. Forgiveness allows a person to repent of their sins, make right in themselves what once was wrong and enter heaven to be with the heavenly father and not burn eternally with Satan.”

If God forgives somebody’s sins, who am I to hold a grudge? Their sins may not be wiped out in this life, but in the next, and that’s the life we’re told to focus on. Forgiveness is more than just words. It has to be heartfelt. And I know it’s not always easy. But that is what we should all be aiming for.

– “Oh, you’re just nuts, I get it now. Modern pop culture is not Christian and should not be followed by a Christian. Modern culture is sick, it’s one of the many reasons why blogs such as this exist. If you’re taking Modern Pop culture seriously, perhaps that’s why you having cognitive dissonance while reading this blog. In light of that, release the hold that the modern world has on you, in relation to its culture, for it is an evil that pervades every fiber of your being.”

Sorry, I don’t follow pop culture – did I give that impression? However I can see it has a real impact on those who do take it seriously, and it should not be ignored in that sense. Pop culture is evil indeed. And probably more than you know. At least we can agree on something.

– “Just a quick FYI. We’re not talking about a man who marries a woman who already has a child by another man. We’re talking about either a woman who gets pregnant, can’t get married to the father and therefore decides to have sex with another man to pass off the pregnancy as his. Or a married woman having an affair and getting preggers and then passing off the child as her husbands without him having knowledge of the affair. If you think that is fair and just, please don’t talk about Christianity because you have zero clue.”

Thanks for setting my perametres straight. I don’t condone that type of practice at all. I still maintain that the child is not accountable. lol way to put words in my mouth – that’s not my notion of justice, or Christianity for that matter.

-“Pretty much sums it up. She’s using shaming tactics once again. Getting those naughty men in line, instead of holding women accountable for their own actions. You understand, of course, that it’s easier to scold men for saying naughty and immature things than it is to place the blame where it belongs, on generations of women who want nothing more than to shift the consequences from themselves to the men in their lives. Nothing Christian about that I’m afraid.”

Sorry have you mistaken me for someone else? Once again? I’ve never posted here before. I’ve got no agenda to “get those naughty men in line”, and I’m not “shaming” anyone, I don’t have any kind of axe to grind with the opposite sex, as you apparently do. I don’t condone any shifting of blame, I would only wish that those who confess Christ would witness Him truthfully. Need I remind you of Jesus’ reputation with fallen women? Or what He said to the adulteress caught in the act? That’s how a Christian should behave.

that was a fantastic summary of the reality of what sex does to females — the total mess of multiple bonding (multiple partners)

“Every time a woman has sex with a man, she bonds to him. I believe this is multifaceted and has biochemical, emotional, psychological and even spiritual components.”

yup across-the-board disaster; she bonds less each time, and NEVER fully lets go of her first sexual experience/partner

with multi bonding/partners, the primary component compromised is spiritual, the others follow as consequence of the spiritual confusion and error — the feminine acts against God’s will and her own true nature (which is more than biological), and soon is forest-lost

deti’s analysis should be required reading in the churches, and on ‘religious’ sites …. instead of hooking up smart scams that sell women rationalizations for hypergamy and liffelong relational drama, under cover of christianity

“Even is they are redeemed by the blood of Christ? Is it not possible for a ‘slut’ to find God, repent, and marry? Far as I know, there is no sin Jesus cannot blot away”
Smyrna
This is just a bunch of rationalized bullshit. Your redemption and repentance is for god. You are a fucking slut I will not marry you,I will not buy a house for you, i will not love you. I see you for who you are and that is someone not worthy of beta male commitment. With redemption you will by god be welcomed into heaven. Your slutty behavior is your cross to bare. You want a good man,you want off the cock carousel then you live a life of honor. Find that christian man and lie to him and take that lie to the grave as your burden. Or tell the truth and live with the consequences. Either way love that man and honor your vows wether you tingle or not. That is your burden of honor to your husband. ( a modern western woman can’t do it that is why married men have to game their wifes) That is what repentance looks like you piece of shit.

Smyrna is a walking talking defender of women doing whatever they please and then hamster repenting so as to not suffer any temporal consequences for behaving like a slut. The implications will all just evaporate if no one calls the slut, “A SLUT” and if the slut can keep her past wanton uncommitted leg-spreading a secret.

Smyrna, you just not getting it. No one here has said a slut should not be allowed to repent and seek forgiveness. What we’re saying is that she must still suffer the consequences of her slutdom and must be called on it so as to provide an example to other young women of what NOT TO DO.

A truly repentant slut shall receive forgiveness, as that is between her and our Lord. We are not allowed to place God’s judgment on her but we can and should explain to others why her life choices are bad and how they should be on her and her alone. No man should marry her or be guilt tripped into marrying her and she is not entitled to marriage, as you seem to think. If she is lucky enough to find a man, who she is honest to about her past, and he is able to get passed her previous slutty behaviour, no one will stop them getting married. However, even if she is that lucky, her past will still cause her issues, she will not be able to bond with this man and she will constantly have to fight the urge to return to banging alphas. She will find that repentance of her sin will be an on going life problem. You also seem to miss that this man is entitled to the full story of her past, he must be fully aware of the problems a slut brings so that he can determine if it is a worthwhile endevour. And if he decides, after being told absolutely everything, that he is better off without her as a wife, she must accept that.

The problem we have when those, like yourself, come here and harp on about the double standard, is this. Society places restrictions on male sexuality, at times with massive penalties like imprisonment for rape and sexual assault. Fathers are even jailed for not being able to afford child support payments or for false domestic abuse charges. However, when it comes to women, it does not, instead all the trad cons, the liberals and the feminists shame those who would shine a light on it. I don’t defend cads or rapists -unless they are falsely accused. And yes, I feel that the modern day definition of rape is far fetched and serves nothing else then to give women a sense of entitlement to oppress men when they feel regret at having had sex of their own free will. In other words, I draw a line between forced, violent rape and the silly girl who got drunk and had sex with the alpha cad. That cad did not rape her, he may have taken advantage but the girl knew the risk of getting drunk and hanging around bad boys, just like the drunk driver who kills someone knew the risk of drinking and driving.

I will not stand for the right of women to do whatever they please without consequences. That does not build a better society it destroys it and creates the mess we have today.

As for pop culture, you used it as an example of society praising alphas and cads, in order to prove that society doesn’t shame cads. You brought that in, not me, I can only assume by you using it as an example of why Christian men shouldn’t shame sluts is because you believe Christian partake in the pop culture and thus praise cads. Which Christians do not.

And you’re right, a child should not be held accountable for their parents actions, however, if you truly want to give children the best possible start in life, they need both parents and they need both parents to be family orientated, respectful and in mutual love. This means that a woman needs to bond with her husband and be respectful of him, in the same way that the man needs to love his wife and provide and protect her and their children. Thus it is important to shame sluts so that they don’t go on to have children that will grow up in a disorientated home, without a father.

All of the above still doesn’t mean a slut can’t receive forgiveness. So please, stop making it out as if it is.

Great piece. As usual. Here’s my take on why men that have had a lot of women are deemed “studs” or even praised but promiscuous women are called sluts and whores, and that there is no double standard.

It is very simple: look at the effort involved in each case. If you are a man and told a male friend that you went out to a bar an met a woman and took her home that night and had sex with her, he would most likely consider this an impressive acocomplishment. In this case, you need to find a woman, seduce her, make her comfortable with you, bring her back to your place and convince this weaker person to strip naked and be penetrated by you. In effect, you are “storming her castle”. Anyway you look at it, this is an accomplishment.

Now look at the reverse scenario. A woman tells her female friend that she went out the other night, met a man and slept with him that very night. Her friend would almost certainly be unimpressed or even horrified. Why? This would be a trivial act for even a plain looking woman. If she sidled up to a man at a bar and threw herself at him unequivocally, she could easily talk him in to bedding her. Here, the castle drawbridge is down, and instead of manning the defenses there is a “come on in!” sign. This is complete abdication of responsibility and is surrender. That is why it is absolutely never viewed as a positive.

To add to feministhater That bonding is gods gift. If you have slutted away gods gift you can still be in a healthly and beleave it or not christian godly marriage only you will have to consciously work at it.( your cross to bare) You will always be aware of the desire to slut around the temptation will always be there. Your conscious effort will be blessed by god in ways you cannot think of now but one day you will see your grandchildren and your temptations will go away and you will be able to feel real content and pride in being a contributing member and builder of a solid family. Hell, you may be able to get the tingle.
Only God can give you that not some brow beaten mangina or some feminised church.

“In effect, you are “storming her castle”. Anyway you look at it, this is an accomplishment.”

And I think that the way many women interpret this is a perfect example of how female preselection works, they want an accomplished man, one who has demonstrated he’s got the right stuff. And it doesn’t matter if the woman is experienced or not, or knows what the ‘right stuff’ is or not, because the guy obiously has it since he stormed a castle gate.

In other words much of the fight over slut vs. cad is really a female internecine dispute and men the usual scapegoats, because an important reason why there is no functional equivalence between a cad and a slut is because a great many women themselves will choose the cad as opposed to the ‘nice guy’, they do not want to engage in cad-shaming so want the boys to do it for them, Let’s You and Him Fight, in other words. But it’s not fair that if they go for the cads that they get called slut, so the negative connotation associated with that term needs to go. The fact that it’s an important issue to any sane, family-oriented man or woman is purely accidental, and men are attacked simply for holding that now undesireable view, not for any of the reasons why they hold that view.

This is my issue with women who pop up in the Manosphere. They think that they can become born-again virgins. They can’t. Sins can be forgiven, but some stain always remains. Men should not be shamed for their natural revulsion against sluts.

I agree with Professor Ashur. I didn’t care how gorgeous a girl was, I was never going to marry a woman who had already had cock in her. Why should I, was and is my attitude.

Bad actions bring bad consequences. I know this from my own errors. And nobody should feel obliged to take on another person’s burdens, especially not a slut’s.

Nine times out of ten, that previous boyfriend did not make sweet, gentle love to your current wife. He fucked her like a silly whore. Why pretend?

Benvenuto Cellini, the Renaissance goldsmith, turned one of his models into his mistress. The little whore took to sleeping with a rival. Cellini was a thug, and he got his revenge by making his rival marry the girl. Having to marry a slut was the greatest shame a man could endure.

– “Smyrna, you just not getting it. No one here has said a slut should not be allowed to repent and seek forgiveness. What we’re saying is that she must still suffer the consequences of her slutdom and must be called on it so as to provide an example to other young women of what NOT TO DO.”

I never said this was not the case. Call people out on it, learn from their mistakes, but do it in a godly manner. You don’t have to swear and throw inults, because basically, it’s indulgent, and in a way you’re actually enjoying this person’s actions, no matter how much you profess disaproval. Why not save yourself the bitterness and anger of being so emotionally involved? If the Holy Spirit is dwelling in you, you won’t desire to indulge these feelings.

– “No man should marry her or be guilt tripped into marrying her and she is not entitled to marriage, as you seem to think.”

I don’t think anybody’s ‘entitled’ to marriage. Of course, if a formerly promiscuous person reforms and wants to marry, it’s got to be with somebody who understands and accepts them (and by accept, I don’t mean just papering over the past). If two such people find each other, good for them.

– “The problem we have when those, like yourself, come here and harp on about the double standard, is this. Society places restrictions on male sexuality, at times with massive penalties like imprisonment for rape and sexual assault. Fathers are even jailed for not being able to afford child support payments or for false domestic abuse charges. However, when it comes to women, it does not, instead all the trad cons, the liberals and the feminists shame those who would shine a light on it.”

I’m not here to harp on about the double standard. What you’ve listed above are all very serious issues which I’m sure have brought pain to many people’s lives. But I see only very tenuous links to the situation I felt compelled to comment on here, which is people who are Christians, heartily meting out very harsh judgment, using profane lagnuage and basically writing people off. That’s pretty much the opposite of what Jesus teaches. I just feel bad for a bunch of people who seem to be engulfed by anger and bitterness. If you profess Jesus, take advantage of everything He offers. You can be above and beyond the bitterness and anger, if the Holy Spirit is with you. I don’t condone the actions of ‘sluts’, but they are people that God saw good to put on the Earth, far be it from anybody to condemn them.

Sorry, running out of time, that’s basically all I have to say. As for the range of other comments I’m guessing are directed at me, this ‘woman who’s popped up in the manosphere’, I’m not a slut, virgin, nor born-again virgin. I’m a young, married mum. Obviously I’d advise against the anger you inflict on yourself in doing so, but feel free to consider me a ‘piece of shit’ by all means.

“As I’ve just told Feminsthater, women in the Bible are very often used as the symbol of a Church or religious system. A ‘harlot’ may be just that (not nearly as offensive a term as slut btw), or it could be a hypocritcal, adulterous religious institution (…as in Mother of all Harlots?…Catholic Church, anyone?)”

Yes, in the Revelation the term ‘whore’ was used symbolically. But clinging to this example conveniently obscures all of the other times in the Bible where the terms ‘whore’ and ‘harlot’ were applied to actual women to judge the moral currency of their sexual behavior. Judah’s Tamar was proven to be a whore, and was to be executed before she exposed Judah’s own wrongdoing (which didn’t include sleeping with a whore, btw). Rahab was identified as a harlot, and not symbolically. Hosea married an actual real-live ‘whore’—at God’s behest to make a point, yes, but the term was applied to her because of her profession. At the end of Numbers, the children of Israel undertake what is effectively the genocide of the Midianites because the men of Israel were ‘whoring’ with Midianite women.

Terms like ‘whore’ and ‘harlot’ were not just ‘symbols’ in the Bible and even when they were, the terms usually also referred to actual female promiscuity as moral turpitude. But you know this. You’re just attempting to drive a tank through a rather small loophole. That’s dishonest.

You’re just attempting to drive a tank through a rather small loophole. That’s dishonest.

Yes, quite, she has been attempting to redefine the debate continuously. I have tried, three times now, to get the same point across. That to shame a slut is not the same as her not being ‘redeemed’ or ‘forgiven’. Forgiveness is between one individual and another or one family towards another family or even one nation to another but it does not remove consequences, not before Jesus died on the cross for our sins and not after. He died so we may enter heaven and be with the Father through his love. He did not die to remove the consequences of our actions here on Earth.

Another thing, I believe God obviously knows what is morally right and wrong but he gives us the choice to commit sins or to do good; so that we learn and become better people and do more good than sin. He wants us to suffer the consequences so that we may achieve some enlightenment. And this is why I disagree with Smyrna, I don’t believe he sent Jesus to wash away everything to do with sin. No, to my understanding, he sent his son, not to wash away our ability to learn from our actions but to wash away the taint of sin when we enter his house after our death here on Earth.

It just so happens that sometimes being brutally honest, and I mean being brutal, is the greatest love one can show. It can quickly put a person on the right track instead of trying to be nice which just allows them to coast on the same rail they’re on till they become a train wreck.

“I would only wish that those who confess Christ would witness Him truthfully. Need I remind you of Jesus’ reputation with fallen women? Or what He said to the adulteress caught in the act?”

Yes, he told her to leave, and stop being a slut…but leave, first.

He actually provokes the woman at the well. They were talking about water, and–out of nowhere–Jesus asks her to go get her husband. She Proverbially wipes her mouth, and says “I have no husband.” (It occurs to me: Was this a come-on? “Hey Jesus, I’m sexy and single!) To which Jesus calls out her harlotry; that she’s had five, and the man she is with now is not even one of those. After that, she is instrumental in getting many other Samaritans to believe in Him. One lesson for this story being (and the only one that makes sense of Jesus’ abrupt change of topic): Only after being confronted with her sin–shamed–can she be useful.

What he certainly does not do, is marry them. Neither does he ask a disciple to marry them.

I felt compelled to comment on here, which is people who are Christians, heartily meting out very harsh judgment, using profane lagnuage and basically writing people off. That’s pretty much the opposite of what Jesus teaches. I just feel bad for a bunch of people who seem to be engulfed by anger and bitterness.

You’re right about one thing, myself and perhaps others here ARE angry. Not bitter though. Anger at the absolutely destructive behaviour of women who call themselves Christian. They profess to be in Jesus but their actions speak of wild flings from guy to guy and then wanting marriage. The anger comes from being told we can’t judge, nor decide that they are no good for marriage. If you don’t understand why that attitude of entitlement should make one angry, you need to spend a little more time reading this blog instead of just assuming we are a bunch of angry, bitter men. Anger can be a righteous emotion, it doesn’t always lead to abuse like feminists would have us believe.

Anyway, I struggle to see why calling out sluts on the internet is anti-Christian. I see it in a different light. We are told to call out bad behaviour and condemn it. Not to pussy foot around it to protect the feelings of those who are doing bad. And that’s exactly what we are engaging in. We don’t get to pronounce punishment on these flighty girls but we sure do get to call them out.

For the record, I’m not perfect, I don’t profess to be perfect and I’ve never had some “rebirth” of Christianity whereby I have received the Holy Spirit. I believe that someday I will be blessed with the Holy Spirit but until then I have to use my common sense, my brain, my education and my Bible to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong.

I’m not a slut, virgin, nor born-again virgin. I’m a young, married mum. Obviously I’d advise against the anger you inflict on yourself in doing so, but feel free to consider me a ‘piece of shit’ by all means.

Glad to hear it, please take the time to read through the blog and take the matters to heart rather than as an insult. It could well strengthen your marriage.

I felt compelled to comment on here, which is people who are Christians, heartily meting out very harsh judgment, using profane lagnuage and basically writing people off. That’s pretty much the opposite of what Jesus teaches. I just feel bad for a bunch of people who seem to be engulfed by anger and bitterness.

About profane language and bitterness, I agree. But harsh judgement and being angry against injustices seems like Jesus to me. Jesus got angry when he saw the traders in the Temple. Jesus was not a PC liberal hippy singing Kumbaya but a manly man. And yes, he judged all the time and he got angry when things were not right.

In addition, don’t feel bad for us, honey. We are doing OK. Feel bad for the women who kissed marriage goodbye for being too picky.

-“Yes, in the Revelation the term ‘whore’ was used symbolically. But clinging to this example conveniently obscures all of the other times in the Bible where the terms ‘whore’ and ‘harlot’ were applied to actual women to judge the moral currency of their sexual behavior.”

As I mentioned to Feminsthater, I did not intend to imply that every reference to a whore or harlot in the Bible was purely symbolic.

-“Rahab was identified as a harlot, and not symbolically.”

You’ve touched on something really interesting here. Yes, Rahab was indeed a literal harlot. She interacted with the spies of Isreal in a solid, literal sense. But in retrospect, for readers of the Bible, her life was also symbolic. As we know, women in the Bible represent a church. We, the followers of God, constitute the Church. So in a sense, the Biblical women represent mankind (men represent God, but that’s another issue), and we are continually, whether Christian or not, courting influences that draw us away – that make us unfaithful to God. Hence a woman (read mankind) is so blemished by her sexual immorality (read rejection of God.) So the harlot Rahab, after siding with God’s people, was saved by tying a scarlet cord around her house. The colour red, in the Bible, is a symbol of sacrifice. So Rahab (unfaithful mankind) is saved by a scarlet cord (Jesus’ sacrifice). There is no tiny loophole. The Bible is literally filled with nuance and symbolism like this. It truly is the word of God.
Female sexual immorality (which is indeed a horrible thing, I’m not trying to diminish it) is actually used as a symbol in the Bible for the sins and separation from God, for all mankind. It’s not emphasised because it alone is the worst sin ever.

@ Feministhater

-“Yes, quite, she has been attempting to redefine the debate continuously. I have tried, three times now, to get the same point across. That to shame a slut is not the same as her not being ‘redeemed’ or ‘forgiven’.”
lol if that’s the case, thank you for indulging my tangents. But I feel a bit like a broken record. My position has not changed from the first post. I’m sorry if my points have been distorted be any undue emphasis on forgiveness – to me it is an integral part of the bigger picture of all we’re discussing here. But “slut-shaming” and the resentment, anger and name-calling associated with it are just not godly. As I’ve said, call people out on their behaviour, by all means. But do it graciously, because you yourself are under God’s grace.

-“You’re right about one thing, myself and perhaps others here ARE angry. Not bitter though. Anger at the absolutely destructive behaviour of women who call themselves Christian. They profess to be in Jesus but their actions speak of wild flings from guy to guy and then wanting marriage. The anger comes from being told we can’t judge, nor decide that they are no good for marriage.”

I can understand that the actions and attitudes of these women can be quite infuriating. And yes, there is such a thing as godly anger, I don’t deny. But I don’t think there’s much of it here at this blog. Regardless of where the anger comes from, is clinging to all this resentment really any good for your soul, or your relationship with God?

-“We are told to call out bad behaviour and condemn it.”

Absolutely. Call it out, condemn the action, not the person, and do it in a godly manner.

-“Another thing, I believe God obviously knows what is morally right and wrong but he gives us the choice to commit sins or to do good; so that we learn and become better people and do more good than sin. He wants us to suffer the consequences so that we may achieve some enlightenment.”

I agree with this. Make your mistake, learn from it, and move on. Don’t hold grudges or hold the sinner in their sin.

-“It just so happens that sometimes being brutally honest, and I mean being brutal, is the greatest love one can show.”

But I don’t agree with this. Honesty, yes. Brutal honesty, no. The term seems to seek a justification of all that anger and resentment I was just talking about. By being honest, you’ve done your duty. Let the person respond how they will. By being ‘brutally honest’, you might alienate them further down that trainwreck path.

-“For the record, I’m not perfect, I don’t profess to be perfect and I’ve never had some “rebirth” of Christianity whereby I have received the Holy Spirit. I believe that someday I will be blessed with the Holy Spirit but until then I have to use my common sense, my brain, my education and my Bible to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong.”

Amen to that. I have felt the Holy Spirit working in my life, but not as much as I should – I refuse Him access all the time without even realising it. We need to cling to the grace of God, because our righteousness is but rags. Good luck and God bless, FH.

@ canecaldo

-“Yes, he told her to leave, and stop being a slut…but leave, first.”
Yep. He convicted her of her sin. Did she repent? It certainly seems so. Did he hurl insults at her? Nope. So that’s how it’s done. He was gentle, but firm and honest. I don’t see many people around here following that template.
-“He actually provokes the woman at the well. They were talking about water, and–out of nowhere–Jesus asks her to go get her husband. She Proverbially wipes her mouth, and says “I have no husband.” (It occurs to me: Was this a come-on? “Hey Jesus, I’m sexy and single!) To which Jesus calls out her harlotry; that she’s had five, and the man she is with now is not even one of those.”

I think you’ve mistaken the tone of the story. And no wonder, if you’re so irreverent about it. You’re really letting your focus on the woman’s immorality distort the gist of it. Fact is, we’re all as guilty as she was, and we would all benefit from the Living Water.

-“After that, she is instrumental in getting many other Samaritans to believe in Him. One lesson for this story being (and the only one that makes sense of Jesus’ abrupt change of topic): Only after being confronted with her sin–shamed–can she be useful.”

Yes, she was instrumental in leading others to God. Despite the fact that she was a ‘slut’. She was convicted of shame (and not with insults, btw) and also of God’s love for mankind.

-“What he certainly does not do, is marry them. Neither does he ask a disciple to marry them.”

Jesus does not force anybody to marry – harlot, whoremonger, or neither.

@ imnobody

-“About profane language and bitterness, I agree. But harsh judgement and being angry against injustices seems like Jesus to me. Jesus got angry when he saw the traders in the Temple. Jesus was not a PC liberal hippy singing Kumbaya but a manly man. And yes, he judged all the time and he got angry when things were not right.

In addition, don’t feel bad for us, honey. We are doing OK. Feel bad for the women who kissed marriage goodbye for being too picky.”

As I said, there is godly anger. And if anybody is capable of it, it’s God himself. Jesus is our judge, – He is 100% just, and 100% gracious and merciful. Our judgment is not His judgment. Our anger is not His anger. Of course we’re going to get angry and judgemental – we’re human. Moving on from those feelings is up to us, and whether we’ll let the Holy Spirit dwell in us and take away the need to nurse and entertain those feelings. I’m the first to admit, I struggle with it. Everybody does.
Sorry, I’ve spent too much time on here today, but I will check out the links you posted asap.

As I said, there is godly anger. And if anybody is capable of it, it’s God himself. Jesus is our judge, – He is 100% just, and 100% gracious and merciful.

But we Christian we should live imitating Christ. That means, to be angry against evil and to judge harshly evil people, the way Paul did (read the Letters).

A Christian is not a sissy and there’s a place for rightful anger.

About being always non-angry, it’s something that belongs to modern positive thinking and not Christianity. The feminized today’s Churchianity is not Christianity (read “The Impotent Church”) and yes, I am angry at the Christ’s message being distorted to conform to a feminized culture.

As I said, there is godly anger. And if anybody is capable of it, it’s God himself. Jesus is our judge, – He is 100% just, and 100% gracious and merciful. Our judgment is not His judgment. Our anger is not His anger. Of course we’re going to get angry and judgemental – we’re human. Moving on from those feelings is up to us, and whether we’ll let the Holy Spirit dwell in us and take away the need to nurse and entertain those feelings.

First of all, your theology is flat-out wrong. God the Father is our judge. Jesus is our Advocate; our Defender from the accusations of the Adversary. Our anger is not necessarily a separate anger from God’s. The Holy Spirit dwells in us, too, and His anger is our anger.

Let’s hear what the Lord had St. Paul tell us about judging…

1 Corinthians 6

1Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 2Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 4If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 5I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

Your appeal for lack of judgment is exactly the sort of apathetic wickedness that enabled Eve to feel justified in eating the fruit.

Beyond all this, you lack common sense. What sort of woman walks into a locker-room full of men, and then stays to complain that there are too many dicks swinging around? Logic says that whatever your reason for entering in the first place, the dicks are what you’re staying for. Now you’re just working out how you’re going to handle it all. Your preference being, of course, that we all just line up, for ease of sorting which one you’d like first.

I just read the articles you directed me to. They really miss a lot of important points about Jesus. I’ve got more to say about those, but not for now.

-“But we Christian we should live imitating Christ. That means, to be angry against evil and to judge harshly evil people, the way Paul did (read the Letters).”

Agreed. But as I’ve said there is an important distinction to be made between judging people, and their actions. Yes, be angry against evil. Learn and move on. God doesn’t want us eaten up with anger. It’s not godly.

-“A Christian is not a sissy and there’s a place for rightful anger.”

I agree. I’ve seen rightful anger work amazing things. But most anger is not rightful anger.

-“About being always non-angry, it’s something that belongs to modern positive thinking and not Christianity. The feminized today’s Churchianity is not Christianity (read “The Impotent Church”) and yes, I am angry at the Christ’s message being distorted to conform to a feminized culture.”

I’m not for always being non-angry. But as I said, godly anger is a rare thing. The vitriol bandied around on this blog is not godly. As for Churchianity vs Christianity, I agree it’s a problem. But I think it’s more about conformity to modern mainstream culture, and not necessarily because it’s been ‘feminized’.

@ canecaldo

-“First of all, your theology is flat-out wrong. God the Father is our judge. Jesus is our Advocate; our Defender from the accusations of the Adversary. Our anger is not necessarily a separate anger from God’s. The Holy Spirit dwells in us, too, and His anger is our anger.”

God the Father has given judgment over to Christ – “The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him… And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.” John 5:22-23″

Jesus is our judge – “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.” 2 Corinthians 5:10″

And you’re right, Jesus is also our Advocate.

As I’ve said, there is such a thing as godly anger, but it is much less common than the ungodly variety. What you’ve stated about the Holy Spirit dwelling in us, and being a source of godly anger, should in fact serve doubly to dissuade from ungodly anger, because that also requires a spiritual association, and one with spirital darkness. This is the reality of our spirituality and emotions, which we often forget. Nothing should be expressed lightly.

Regarding 1 Corinthians 6 –

Apart from the ‘judging the angels’ part (which happens in the next life, when we’re free of sin), it’s about Christians sorting out disputes amongst themselves, according to the tenets of their religion, and not resorting to secular courts, which at the time Paul was writing, meant a Pagan court (and probably nothing has changed, given the occult ‘hidden in plain sight’ nature of modern culture). It’s not about justified slinging matches. That’s not what righteous judgment is about. The chapter goes on to admonish the practice of family suing family, because of the bad light in which it presents Christianity to non-believers. In regard to common, petty, hateful judgment and accusation of others – MATTHEW 7:1-5:

“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull the mote out of thine eye; and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

-“Beyond all this, you lack common sense. What sort of woman walks into a locker-room full of men, and then stays to complain that there are too many dicks swinging around? Logic says that whatever your reason for entering in the first place, the dicks are what you’re staying for. Now you’re just working out how you’re going to handle it all. Your preference being, of course, that we all just line up, for ease of sorting which one you’d like first.”

I advise you to inspect your ‘logic’ there a little more closely. You might find it doesn’t quite stack up. I’ll leave it to you to determine how and why. If you thought I’d be shocked or offended at such explicit references to male anatomy, or allusions to male/female relations, you’re wrong. You’re just plain trying to antagonise me. Sorry, unmoved and not taking the bait.

I’m not for always being non-angry. But as I said, godly anger is a rare thing. The vitriol bandied around on this blog is not godly. As for Churchianity vs Christianity, I agree it’s a problem. But I think it’s more about conformity to modern mainstream culture, and not necessarily because it’s been ‘feminized’.

Oh, get out. Telling us not judge and then quite frankly going on to judge our anger. Pathetic! The Church is feminised in everyway. Men = bad, women = good. Go stick your head in the sand somewhere else. The Church is evil, God does not dwell in there anymore. The Vagina, multicult, bullbasher Mammon does though. I am Christian but I do not belong to Churchianity and will keep calling them out on their bullcrap sermons and greed for as long as I live!

We are judged by God whether we like it or not. God gave us a brain and calls on us to use it. To make a proper society, bad behaviour and bad people must be called out, in a brutal manner. I will not budge on this point and nor will most Christian commentators on this blog. So… if that’s the reason you’re still here, I advise you to move on.

I advise you to inspect your ‘logic’ there a little more closely. You might find it doesn’t quite stack up. I’ll leave it to you to determine how and why. If you thought I’d be shocked or offended at such explicit references to male anatomy, or allusions to male/female relations, you’re wrong. You’re just plain trying to antagonise me. Sorry, unmoved and not taking the bait.

Okay, his locker room/dick idea was probably rather over the top but never fear, try this on for size.

A lady reads a blog, determines that all the men commenting are angry, bitter and ungodly and deigns to tell them this while calling on them not to judge (irony much). These so called ungodly, bitter and angry men don’t just ask the blog owner to ban her but instead give her all their reasons for why they feel their anger and why they feel it is their right to put this anger into some form of documentation. In other words they actually try to reach out and be nice and not judge. They advise said lady to read the entirety of the blog, which in the the blog owner has tirelessly set out to explain and document with graphs, statistics, studies, testimonies and his own research, the big problem facing society in general and the Church in particular. And instead of advising men not to marry or to use women as nothing more than prick cushions, he advises both men, and those few women who do take these matters to heart, on a possible way out, a possible way to at least get some marital bliss in this ungodly world. Basically advising the Christians who read this blog not to give into sin but to find solutions. I would call that a rather Godly pursuit, and he even does it tactfully, imagine that?

Now said lady has spent a number of days commenting, still refuses to acknowledge that these men may in fact be right but instead calls on them to stop what they’re doing or to do it in a way that doesn’t shame those committing the act of sin. Instead of leaving the blog she doesn’t agree with or thinks is ungodly, she demands the men ‘shut up’ about the evil going on in the Church or the evil women are doing to society, men, children and entire Nations’ futures and that shames them, demanding they should get into line and service her needs.

John 5:22-23 confuses me greatly, I don’t pretend to understand the Bible completely but sometimes certain passages make little to no sense to me unless I try and flesh them out myself.

In Christianity, Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit form the Holy Trinity. Which is a conundrum to anyone with a brain. One could merely say that since they are 3 in 1, one in the same, that God giving Jesus judgment still means God judges us all. You see, nice conundrum there.

However, I like these discussions as it does provide an interesting thought process. God sent Jesus, his only son, to die for our sins, to allow our rebirth. I don’t think God gives judgment to Jesus lightly or because God cannot really judge us. I believe he can if he so wants. Jesus died for us and now serves as our redeemer and thus through him, nothing else, lies our return to be with God. That’s why God has given judgment over to him as Jesus is our link to God.

Jesus also having lived a human life and having died as a human, knowing well our human nature, can well serve to be that connection. He is our judge but he’s is also our saviour, since he knows the troubles humans’ face and has already vanquished them all.

God gave judgment of our souls over to Jesus but I waver to think that God doesn’t judge. God has given judgment to his son as a sign that his son is great and should be honoured.

As I said, somethings in the Bible still greatly confuse me. If my assessment is wrong, so be it.

-” I am Christian but I do not belong to Churchianity and will keep calling them out on their bullcrap sermons and greed for as long as I live!”

I don’t belong to any church either, except the the one Christ defines as his followers. I’m in Australia – I’m assuming your’re in the US. Church scenes are somewhat different. Australia has been called the most Godless nation on Earth, and I don’t disagree. In general, I think Aussies are much more cynical about religion than Americans. We don’t have any Bible-belts, or any regions where Chrisianity, or a “Christian-flavoured” lifestyle is cool or even acceptable. If you’re part of a Church community, you’re pretty much for the most part a social outcast (unless we’re talking super rich inner-city Christians, but that’s just cos they’re rich). I guess what I’m getting at is that I don’t deal with the amount of religious hypocrisy that you do, be it from sexually immoral Christian women or whatever else. I do understand your frustration, but I’m not part that culture at all. And I don’t percieve church culture here to be ‘feminised’.

And I agree, the greed and hypocrisy of the big church movements needs to be called out.

-“We are judged by God whether we like it or not. God gave us a brain and calls on us to use it. To make a proper society, bad behaviour and bad people must be called out, in a brutal manner.”

First point and second points, agreed. Third point – why ‘brutal’? It’s a word that gets used a lot on this blog, and seems to be used as a justification of anger. Was Jesus ever ‘brutal’, even when He was angry? As I’ve said many many times now, call out bad behaviour. You can even be angry. But you don’t need to lose your head, and shoot yourself in the foot with that anger, by making it petty, hateful or vitriolic insult-filled anger. It’s counter-productive. It’s not godly.

-“A lady reads a blog, determines that all the men commenting are angry, bitter and ungodly and deigns to tell them this while calling on them not to judge (irony much).”

I haven’t called one person ungodly. I’ve called the anger and insults here ungodly. I haven’t said not to judge, but have pointed out that a distinction must be made between the judging the action and the person (lol, the only irony I can think of is that you’d like me banned, for NOT swearing and using profane language).

“…but instead give her all their reasons for why they feel their anger and why they feel it is their right to put this anger into some form of documentation. In other words they actually try to reach out and be nice and not judge.”

Well actually, I’ve been called a ‘piece of shit’, amongst a range of other things, and been told I’m only in here to ‘make the dicks line up for me’. Not that it ruffles me, but that can hardly be anyone’s definition of ‘nice’, right? Or ‘reaching out’? I’d call it hostility, and nothing else.

-“They advise said lady to read the entirety of the blog, which in the the blog owner has tirelessly set out to explain and document with graphs, statistics, studies, testimonies and his own research, the big problem facing society in general and the Church in particular. And instead of advising men not to marry or to use women as nothing more than prick cushions, he advises both men, and those few women who do take these matters to heart, on a possible way out, a possible way to at least get some marital bliss in this ungodly world. Basically advising the Christians who read this blog not to give into sin but to find solutions. I would call that a rather Godly pursuit, and he even does it tactfully, imagine that?”

The graphs and statistics are just fine. I’ve never said I have a problem with any of that. I agree with a lot of what Dalrock presents. I’m saddened by what marriage has become for most people. But I disagree with it being done tactfully. All this ‘pump and dump’ talk, going on about ‘cockwarmers’ and such like, not to mention ‘slut’. It’s profanity. You can talk about the issues all you like. You can chose more level-headed language. Wouldn’t that improve the credibility of the articles?

-“Now said lady has spent a number of days commenting, still refuses to acknowledge that these men may in fact be right but instead calls on them to stop what they’re doing or to do it in a way that doesn’t shame those committing the act of sin. Instead of leaving the blog she doesn’t agree with or thinks is ungodly, she demands the men ‘shut up’ about the evil going on in the Church or the evil women are doing to society, men, children and entire Nations’ futures and that shames them, demanding they should get into line and service her needs.”

This blog has identified some really key issues, and covered them well. I never said it wasn’t ‘right’. But as for the emotional level and choice of language on this blog…Now I’m really feeling like a broken record…Can you guess what I say next? I haven’t told anybody to ‘shut up’ or ignore any issues. One thing baffles me – you’re the second person who’s told me I want everyone to ‘line up’ so my ‘needs’ can be met. I negate both assertions. I don’t want anything from you. I’m just firm where I believe myself to be right, and I’m not backing down.

-“John 5:22-23 confuses me greatly, I don’t pretend to understand the Bible completely but sometimes certain passages make little to no sense to me unless I try and flesh them out myself.

In Christianity, Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit form the Holy Trinity. Which is a conundrum to anyone with a brain. One could merely say that since they are 3 in 1, one in the same, that God giving Jesus judgment still means God judges us all. You see, nice conundrum there.

However, I like these discussions as it does provide an interesting thought process. God sent Jesus, his only son, to die for our sins, to allow our rebirth. I don’t think God gives judgment to Jesus lightly or because God cannot really judge us. I believe he can if he so wants. Jesus died for us and now serves as our redeemer and thus through him, nothing else, lies our return to be with God. That’s why God has given judgment over to him as Jesus is our link to God.

Jesus also having lived a human life and having died as a human, knowing well our human nature, can well serve to be that connection. He is our judge but he’s is also our saviour, since he knows the troubles humans’ face and has already vanquished them all.

God gave judgment of our souls over to Jesus but I waver to think that God doesn’t judge. God has given judgment to his son as a sign that his son is great and should be honoured.

As I said, somethings in the Bible still greatly confuse me. If my assessment is wrong, so be it.”

^I think that’s a very sound assessment. I agree, I think the main reason God the Father has given judgment over to Christ, is for Christ to recieve the honour He deserves, which is equal to that of the Father. We all make the mistake of regarding the Father as greater and more important than the Son. Yet we owe our redemption to the Son. Which is actually God the Father anyhow. Trinity conundrum again. Personally, I feel very reassured by the knowledge of having Jesus as my Judge. I feel awe for the Father, but love for Jesus.

The Bible is incredibly complex and confusing. I still find it confusing, but when I was younger, I really had no idea. I’ve been watching Bible lectures for about two years. I recommend Walter Veith.

I advise you to inspect your ‘logic’ there a little more closely. You might find it doesn’t quite stack up. I’ll leave it to you to determine how and why. If you thought I’d be shocked or offended at such explicit references to male anatomy, or allusions to male/female relations, you’re wrong. You’re just plain trying to antagonise me. Sorry, unmoved and not taking the bait.

No, you tell me. I’ll not present your defense for you. The intent was not plain antagonizing (though I admit some is mixed in, I’m not sorry to say.) At its root, I believe this is what you’re after. “Oh my, these men are so uncivilized. No, no, no: this won’t do at-all. They aren’t behaving the way I think they should, and my way is so clearly the Lord’s way. Now, let’s see who’ll come to my senses…” In other words: You want us to line up the way you say, and present ourselves in the manner you prefer. I still think my assessment is correct. As far as I can tell, you don’t have much of a stake in the game we’re playing, except as potential mate material.

All this ‘pump and dump’ talk, going on about ‘cockwarmers’ and such like, not to mention ‘slut’. It’s profanity. You can talk about the issues all you like. You can chose more level-headed language. Wouldn’t that improve the credibility of the articles?

You miss the point; perhaps because you’re in Australia. I don’t know what the place is like. It will please you to know that I don’t speak this way at church, or even at work because it wouldn’t be appropriate there. This is Dalrock’s locker-room–it’s appropriate here, as long as Dalrock says it is. American Christian men have sat around for decades, and spoke “level-headed” language to Christian women. It hasn’t worked. Dalrock’s graphs show that.

So, I’m passed that point: if women–even Christian ones–are going to go around acting like sluts and cockwarmers, then we should all stop enabling them by white-washing their acts.* If you don’t like the terms, I suggest you talk to the sluts, and stop the actions that merit them.

I don’t think anyone has asked that you be banned, but neither am I going to cover up my nakedness for you. Go over to http://www.christianforums.com and talk to those people. They speak of frivolous divorce, deceptive cuckoldry, and justified fornication in the credible terms that have created and sustain this present horror; that is: that you prefer.

*You can get a good idea of it here:

Once again, Billy Beta is viewed as a typical controlling misogynistic pig and a jealous little boy who needs to grow up while Alan Alpha is perceived as a grounded, progressive and educated man of the world. Sure, Alan Alpha has zero respect for her and regards her as merely a cum dumpster to the masses, but she doesn’t know he thinks this way. She’s in his corner (and on his cock) as long as he continues to placate her. Alan Alpha has embraced the feminist ideals of promiscuous self exploitation and can now add another notch to his bedpost. As he pulls his dick out of her mouth and squirts his load all over the lips that will one day kiss the first born son of a pathetic Beta, he looks into her eyes and knows that thanks to her espousal of feminist propaganda, he’s not taking advantage of her at all. He’s simply giving her exactly what she wants – the right to be a Sexually Liberated Urban Tart.

canecaldo, a “big call” means a brave, unlikely claim. A “furphy” is an untrue rumour. The story goes that men in the Australian Army would gather around water trucks in WWI and swap rumours. The brand of the trucks was Furphy. So, furphy. But THAT might just be a furphy.

I doubt that Australians are especially irreligious. We tend to be reserved and tolerant about personal belief. That could seem like indifference. What we don’t have, I have just realised, is any home-grown Christian denominations.

-“No, you tell me. I’ll not present your defense for you. The intent was not plain antagonizing (though I admit some is mixed in, I’m not sorry to say.) At its root, I believe this is what you’re after. “Oh my, these men are so uncivilized. No, no, no: this won’t do at-all. They aren’t behaving the way I think they should, and my way is so clearly the Lord’s way. Now, let’s see who’ll come to my senses…” In other words: You want us to line up the way you say, and present ourselves in the manner you prefer. I still think my assessment is correct. As far as I can tell, you don’t have much of a stake in the game we’re playing, except as potential mate material.”

lol I’m not going to offer any defense against your dicks/locker room thing. If it was an attack, it totally missed the mark (and no wonder, it made virtually no sense).

I don’t think you’re uncivilised. I don’t care if you’re not. But the language you guys are using here is really extreme, especially for a blog that is essentially Christian (and don’t get me wrong – I agree with most of the values presented here). It’s not the language itself that bothers me so much, (trust me, I was once in the habit of joyfully spouting much worse) but the anger associated with it. I’ve stated again and again I maintain a distinction between godly and ungodly anger. I really think the anger on this blog falls into the latter category. And I don’t want to give the impression that I think I’m superior to anybody here in how I relate to the Lord. I don’t even remotely think that.

I’m not trying to change anybody to ‘what I prefer’. Hopefully you might see your anger for what it is and discard it for your own sake. I’m not playing any game, and I have no stake in this at all. I’m married.

-” This is Dalrock’s locker-room–it’s appropriate here, as long as Dalrock says it is. American Christian men have sat around for decades, and spoke “level-headed” language to Christian women. It hasn’t worked. Dalrock’s graphs show that.”

So you need Dalrock to set the standards for you? Can’t you think for yourself? And if you’re trying to ‘change’ American women by slinging insults at them with this blog…

-“So, I’m passed that point: if women–even Christian ones–are going to go around acting like sluts and cockwarmers, then we should all stop enabling them by white-washing their acts.”

I have never said to whitewash anything. All I’m about is not letting ungodly anger, that is hurling insults and profanities, get in the way of seeing that these women, though their sins be scarlet (as are everybody’s), are human beings that God loves.

-“Go over to http://www.christianforums.com and talk to those people. They speak of frivolous divorce, deceptive cuckoldry, and justified fornication in the credible terms that have created and sustain this present horror; that is: that you prefer.”

I don’t ‘prefer’ anything. I don’t frequent any Christian forums – I read the Bible and watch Bible lectures instead. I’m only an active member of the Vigilant Citizen forums. Got my tinfoil hat on an’ all. I stumbled upon this blog by total accident, trying to research China buying American debt, of all things.

@ David Collard

-“I live in Australia and there are plenty of serious Christians here. I doubt it is “the most Godless place on Earth”. That would be a big call, as we say here.”

It’s not a big call at all. Others share my opinion. Perhaps it’s different in your generation. I don’t know how old you are, but I’m 24. I attended a public high school, where there was literally just one other Christian in my grade. There were heaps of private school kids travelling on the same buses as us, and none of them were actually Christian. At uni, where my course had people ranging from teenaged up to about 55, there was not one Christian at all (not even me – I was very disillusioned with Christianity for a few years, before the Lord called me back. And no, while my beliefs wavered, my behaviour hardly changed – I’m not a reformed ‘slut’, before you try to jump on that).

I know from the media, that there are some pretty serious Christian movements in the cities – Hillsong and the like. And a bunch of empty churches in the regional areas. Where I grew up, they mostly get converted into houses.

-“As for women lecturing men on not being crude, come back when women stop worshipping Moloch with abortions.”

lol This is not ‘women vs men’, and I don’t speak for all women. To regard what I say as invalid, based on the practices of other women is hardly rational. But I am anti-abortion. And I’m glad you’re aware of the Pagan/Occult nature of modern society. As I just told canecaldo, I used to be joyfully crude. I enjoyed it’s shock-value and the noteriety it garnered me. I’ve since moved on. The crudeness here comes from anger. I still recommend moving on. I believe you can think for yourself in a way that doesn’t hinge on what the women are up to.

Cars: usually either home made (owned for corporate multinations, of course, but don’t mention that) or imported. Cars from some countries carry either snob value or complete tosser status, often depending on where they live. Imported cars from asian countries are usually explained as ‘the second car’, wifes of students car.

Sport: traditionally this was cricket in summer or football in winter. But this is gradually ssplintering with nrl competing against afl, and myriads of other popular sports gaining acceptance and a following.

Real estate: both as investment (thank you, capital gain tax writeoff) and for owner-occupier (inherent snob value, typically rephrased politely as ‘convenience’, ‘value’ or other ubiquitious term. Real estate never goes down, of course, because of both memory loss (late eighties, anyone?), and vestec interests. The banks are heavily capitalised by overvalued real estate, both residential and commercial.

Plus, when the mining boom fizzles, all those tradies will need sonething to do.

Egalitarian: Australians often express the absurd beliefs that because classism is less overt than some other adanced socialist nation states, that we are all equal. Too funny.

Finally, whilst the average Aussie is not a church goer, they do believe in the power of government to fix stuff. Most Australians advocate markrt interventionism in the name of ‘fairness’. And as they say, one good intervention deserves another. And another. Hence it is now one of the most overgoverned democracies on Earth.

Yep. All boxes ticked. With apologies to Donald Horne, a lucky country governed by opportunistic sociopaths, all with the express consent of the ‘informed’ voter. Sure sounds like a belief system to me.

-“Your response was a predictable pile of evasion, misdirection, mischaracterizations, lies, and platitudes. I remain unimpressed.”

Well saying so unfortunately doesn’t make it so. If you can do nothing but tack labels on my response, instead of addressing the points I made, then perhaps you didn’t read it. As for lies, I wonder how you can determine that. Certainly not with the scripture I posted (which supported my position somewhat, remember?)

@ imnobody (if you’re still around!)

I don’t have the time to go over the entirety of the articles, but this part stuck out for me.

-“Greek woman approaches Jesus, “Please heal my daughter.” Jesus replies, “You are not worthy, you little dog.” Jesus’s neg gets the proper response too, leading the woman to grovel further: “Even the dogs get a scrap of bread.” Happy with her full submission stated out loud, Jesus provides the requested healing.”

Here’s the actual story from Mark 7, so you can see it without the spin that the author of the above has put on it:

25 For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet:

26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.

27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.

28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.

29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.

What’s actually happening here is this – He was not calling her a dog to force her submission as a woman. Jesus is testing her faith by talking roughly to her, as if upholding the animosity between Jews and Greeks of the time. She believed in Him, and persisted with her request for her daughter’s sake. Jesus then rewarded her request, and showed her the love He has for everybody. This was also a lesson for Jesus’ disciples, who had not yet learned that Jesus came to save all people, and not just the Jews. This served to begin breaking down their prejudices against other nations.

The bible tells us the scandalised truth that we have the freedom to repent. We hav a kinsman-redeemer who has paid the cost of buying us back from the consequences of sin.

However, whilst repentance allows His grace and forgiveness to bring about change, forgiveness does not erase opportunity cost. This equates to the potential achievements or outcomes foregone as a result of decision making.

If we repent of wrongdoing, there is forgiveness. But there are also consequences. Forgiveness is mercy. Consequences are justice. Opportunity cost is what we miss out on. Choosing option a means foregoing not only b, c and d, but other unknown options that will never eventuate.

As we experience time as a linear process, attempts to revisit options b, c and d will not recapture missed possibilities.

And another thing. Prosperity gospel preaching does not impress. A helping of motivational theory, a dash of gospel and a sprinkling of bible quotes does not constitute a church. A club, maybe, but not a church.

^So basically you occupy exactly the same position as everyone else I’ve been discussing this issue with. I’m not going to call out the flaws of ‘logic’ here, I’m just going to concede that our viewpoints (that is, mine and everybody here’s) are irreconcilable. But my position does not change. I don’t see how you can appoint yourself to administer the ‘consequences’ which you deem so essential, namely using the label ‘slut’ and other profanities very liberally. I still hold that just not marrying a person, based on your objections to their past, is consequence enough for their actions, without resorting to insults and profanities. That would be justice, without needless injury.

Consequences don’t have to be administered. That’s part of the definition.

Apparently you object to the use of any term describing a woman’s behaviour that you deem objectionable. And insist that avoiding marriage to such a woman is punishment enough. By this standard, any behaviour that is repented of should have no consequences.

Labelling a woman’s rebellion as sin is a profanity? You must be kidding.

Past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour. Women are the sexual gatekeepers. Accurately describing a womans inability to practice impulse control needs terms. If you find the term slut offensive, doubtless other proggresives do too, and will redefine it soon.

Wait, i seem to remember that’s already happened. Sexually active women with double digit partner counts are liberated, empowered, independent and in control of their destiny.

Doubtless, the trivialities of life threatening stds, inability to pair bond, and delaying marriage after years on the alpha carousel are all the fault of the mean hucksters of the patriarchy and their profane descriptors?

A lot of people believe it’s “wrong” for women to be promiscuous and therefore, “right” for men. It’s a belief – not an absolute truth. Labelling women as, “sluts” is definitely intended to be hurtful and degrading but it really doesn’t say much about the women enjoying themselves. It says a lot more about the minds and the intentions of people who feel the need to devalue women. Men tend to condemn “sluts” but have no problem sexually exploiting them. Go figure. It’s just another glitch in their reasoning…more old and unchallenged beliefs. There’s nothing immoral about women being sexually active.

You might have missed this before. The problem with female promiscuity is that it injures and degrades the women who engage in it. That injury and degradation are not immediately apparent but it does appear eventually.

The word “slut” and its use are intended to bring shame, and thus to exert external social pressure to avoid the behavior. Its purpose is not to devalue and degrade women; but rather to prevent women from injuring and degrading themselves, or at least persuade them not to further degrade themselves.

Female promiscuity also causes injury. It’s much easier for a woman to get a symptomatic STD than for a man. They have higher rates of unplanned pregnancy, single motherhood, abortion and infertility than chaste women. Sluts find it harder to find worthy husbands. Most men will happily sex up a slut; but few will willingly wife her up. (This causes untold injury to women. Many sluts grow up hearing from everyone around them that they can have sex like men with no adverse consequences and are pained beyond measure when they learn the awful truth.)

Male promiscuity is no less “wrong” than it is for women. But I submit promiscuity is more injurious and degrading to women than it is to men.

Shame is a good thing. In the natural, it tends to influence behavior. There is some behavior that is shameful and some behavior of which people rightly ought to be ashamed. Why shouldn’t women be discouraged from injurious, degrading behavior?

And I forgot. Many sluts find it impossible to bond to a man. It is not so much that she does not want to love him; it’s that she can’t. She’s bonded herself to so many men and those severed, sparking bonds are trying to reconnect to so many different men that she can no longer forge a lasting connection to anyone. She cannot show him love. She cannot be intimate or close to him. She cannot trust him with her feelings, fears, insecurities, or triumphs. She cannot tell him the things she likes or dislikes. She cannot connect herself to him, and she will not let him connect himself to her.

She cannot bond because she’s bonded and then broken those bonds so many times before, that her body and soul simply cannot endure the pain of the breaks anymore. Or she cannot bond because she cannot bring herself to trust another so completely with her mind, emotions and heart. Or she cannot bond because the rapid escalation to sex prevented her from learning how to bond in the first place.

My mom had a little figurine of a bluejay. She kept it for years. She really liked it, but it was an unfortunate piece of ceramic. It just kept getting broken. Mom dropped it a couple of times. I did too, and my sister did as well. She put it up high, but my dad accidentally knocked it off the bookshelf and the bluejay’s tail broke off.

Each time it broke, Dad fixed it with superglue or epoxy, or whatever other chemical compound he could find to repair that little thing my mom liked so much. “I love that thing but it’s been broken so many times”, Mom would say. Dad did his best to fix it each time. The first two or three times we broke it, Dad fixed it very well and you couldn’t tell it had been broken. You had to look really closely to see the cracks. Looking at it from a distance, you could see nothing wrong with it at all. The repair jobs were pretty good and it was still quite serviceable as a decorative piece.

Then after a few more times, the bluejay was back together but you could see the cracks because small pieces of the ceramic chipped off and could not be found. Each time it fell, small chips of paint fell off and never were replaced or touched up. And parts of the cracks had superglue showing on the outside. As his repairs continued, Dad used the superglue as filler where small pieces of the ceramic had been. As we broke it over and over again, Dad just could not make it as good as new. “The superglue holds it together, but it’s not as pretty as it used to be. And the ceramic is weaker. It will break much more easily now.”

Finally, the day Dad knocked it off the bookshelf and the tail broke off, he got out the epoxy and the newspaper, and spread them out on the dining room table for yet another repair session. He put the tail back on, but used more epoxy like a Bondo filler. I remember looking at it under the bright overhead light he used. It was back together, but it looked terrible. There were cracks everywhere from old repair jobs. The superglue filler was discolored. The breaks were there for anyone and everyone to see.

Mom’s little bluejay was ruined. It was no longer any good as a decoration. It was used up and worn out. What had been a pretty decoration had been broken so many times that, well, you could put it back together, but it was ugly and could no longer serve its original purpose. The only thing it was good for was as a paperweight, but those are a dime a dozen, and besides, you can get paperweights that are much less hassle and don’t break so easily.

No one wanted to look at the little broken, scarred up bluejay. No one wanted it anymore. And so it was finally thrown away.

Slut is the word men use to each other to describe a promiscuous woman.
Men do not tend to say the word Slut to a woman’s face (they are too polite).
If a chaste woman falls for an Alpha cad she becomes a Slut.
For a man to sleep with a known Slut does little for his reputation amongst men (and can damage it as going with a known Slut may show desparation and lack of options).
Sluts go to great lengths to hide their promiscuity (which is why the women in the picture almost certainly are not sluts).
By referring to a woman as a Slut, men warn each other off other men.
A Slut has a low MMV.
Promiscuous women tend to have insecurity problems and problems bonding.
Slutting can make a woman feel, temporarily, loved (though frequently afterwards used).
Slutting may persuade a woman she is desirable.
Slutting may persuade a woman’s female friends that she is popular with men.
Sluts having low impulse control, frequently indulge themselves in other actions where impulse controls are important such as food and alcohol and often by way of their lack of impulse controls exhibit inappropriate behaviour in their dealings with others.
A sexually active woman remains promiscuous even if she protests her chastity by excercising some choice in whom she sleeps with, for what is one dick more or less and one must suppose her sudden chasteness is for reasons other than a general chastity.

It’s tough for a woman; but the prize can be great (Kate Middleton) and the ignominy never ending (Monica Lewinsky).

Darlene seems somehow desparate to re-write nature, and to blame men, whereas it is women who are most anti-slut (men don’t care; they just won’t marry them).

Whether it is or is not immoral for a woman to be promiscuous, promiscuity is something, clearly, that women do not like to be broadcast widely, because promiscuity has consequences – as Deti explained. It is not just a question of marriage however; promiscuous women, and especially Prostitutes, have no place in society, and will be shunned by other women as much as by men, for a promiscuous woman (and more so than a Prostitute) is a threat to that other woman’s marriage.

Women like Darlene may rail against the ‘double standard’ but of course there cannot be any studs without sluts and being a stud is very difficult or at least limited to just a few men, whereas any woman – with a pulse, and of no more than average looks – can be a slut. Ultimately, like water, everything comes down to its own level, and the slut must live with the consequence of her choice, but as I said above it is not men who will criticise – it’s just that they will avoid.

If a man knows a slut, he will surely want to sleep with her; if she refuses he will think her hypocritical – for what is one dick more or less; but if she sleeps around, she will rule herself out as unmarriageable. Sluts are unmarriable, however, for other reasons: a propensity to sleeping around is (as I mentioned above) a good indication that the woman has other equally serious problems – and perhaps it is those problems that lead her to promiscuity. At the least, it is an indication that the woman sees men as disposable and inter-changable, and who would want to marry someone like that, that is unless he is a man with no options himself – an omega.

I once dated a woman who casually mentioned that she did not know how many men she had sex wtih. Something inside of me cringed; it was painful to hear this. I knew that I would never commit to her exclusively after this revelation. Quality men do not want to commit to sexually promiscuous women.

Perhaps the best answer to Darlene is this: The more a person sluts around the more another person is treated as disposable (which is also how they themselves seek to be treated). In using another solely for sexual pleasure the possibility of love is excluded. The Prostitute accepts that loss in return for financial reward. The Slut does not even have that recompense.

The more women who slut around, the easier men will find it to have sex, and cheap sex at that. When that happens men will become more choosy thus lowering female market value. Female chastity grants women great power. Female sluttiness does the converse.

Pondering on a remark by TFH on another thread, a further reason for the ‘double standard’ as to male and female promiscuity occured to me. Men are the ones who risk and frequently lose their lives ‘protecting’ women and their country. Men may thus have few chances to mate with a woman. The same does not apply to a woman; for even divorced or widowed women seem to have no shortage of men keen to step in to the breach. Men thus have a biological imperative to take their chances: women can bide their time.

I will never forget the chagrin of a certain woman I knew who had previously thrown herself at a local Alpha, as (publicly) he asked another woman – and less attractive perhaps, though somewhat younger and perhaps easier to be with – if she would care to share her annual vacation with him. It is not that sluts don’t get to marry the Alphas; they don’t even get invited on holiday.

Very attractive sluts seem to be exempt from the full burden of slutdom. Some men will not be interested, but a very pretty slut may still get a man who cares about looks but is less discriminating about a woman’s past.

I think DC is right that it’s easier for very attractive sluts to be excused.

I think this isn’t true from the slut’s perspective though. If she is very attractive, she expects to get the full benefit from her attractiveness. She expects the very best men to want to commit to her. When somewhat less attractive men are the only ones who are willing to commit, she feels the sting just as much as a less attractive slut would.

Clearly, however, a woman who indulged just once but thereafter thought better of it, is no longer, at least in my Lexicon, a slut. Neither do I think that a serial monogamist is a slut, generally speaking. A woman, however, who boasts that her slut days are behind her, when those days only ended last week, is not yet to be given the benefit of the doubt, any more than I was impressed with the purported chastity of the young lady who said to me ‘I’ve just returned from three weeks in Florida and I have been very good as I slepped with ONLY five men’. – to claim chastity on the basis of such rampant promiscuity continues to leave me speechless – I made number 6, by the way – always rude to refuse.

For what it is worth I concur with Dalrock’s view as to promiscuous attractive women in that promiscuity will indeed harm their chances. It is all the more true when one considers that in choosing a wife there are other criteria than merely looks, and one of the most important of those is a propensity to chastity. I rather suspect that women are entirely oblivious to this fact and that men are very observant of the behaviour of their intended. Having said that, I can perhaps square the circle as between Dalrock and Deti by observing that in my observation attractive women are NOT promiscuous. Quite the reverse in fact: It is women of average looks who seem to be the most promiscuous; attractive enough to attract, yet not ugly enough to put off. They also seem to have serious mental problems but it is difficult to determine whether those problems cause the promiscuity or whether the promiscuity is caused or aggravated the problems. For what it is worth, arguably the most beautiful woman I ever knew (not my type which was why to her annoyance she was unable to manipulate me) was, until her marriage at about thirty five, always chaste; she even had a Roman Catholic Priest propositioning her! She used her beauty wisely, being essentially a peasant girl, and married up – to a Medical Doctor. She rightly deduced that giving it away would lower her power. Men are simply not going to woo a woman they think they can merely proposition.

Dalrock and Opus, good points. I have little to add. Except that I have got the impression that being slutty does lower even a beautiful woman’s value and she may get a less than optimal man. She may even miss out on a true alpha. I tend to think that a man who doesn’t much care about his prospective wife’s previous exploits is a bit lazy and slack himself.

I was a fairly good catch, and I was certainly prepared to put a premium on virginity. No amount of beauty would have compensated for the absence of that quality.

I am not a top alpha, but I suspect such men might prefer to marry a beautiful virgin for preference. Like the peasant girl and her doctor.

Think i will persist with the usual explanation of the alleged double standard. Sexual sin is what is is. However, it is far easier for a young woman to get a sexual partner than a young man, when smvs are equal.

It is undoubtedly the case that women, generally, find it easier than men to acquire sexual partners. A brief look at Craig’s List or similar will reveal that there are few women advertising for men but many men advertising for women – and obviously with little success; and worse, one suspects that any reply the man receives will be from a woman offering sex for pecuniary consideration.

Promiscuous women, however – at least this is what I observe – seem to labour under the delusion that because, for them, acquiring a sexual partner is easy, that it is thus equally easy for a man; that because they are having copious sex on demand, their partner for the night is doing likewise. This I think is just another version of the Apex fallacy; justifying, in their own eyes, their promiscuity as normal – after all, they reason, all the guys are doing it too – and their more reticent girlfriends will in ‘you go girl’ manner envy them their success and popularity with men. The reality is, however, that as men find it hard to say, No, the men they are picking up are men whose dry spell has just ended. These women are not sleeping with Alpha McStud. McStud will almost certainly be overlooking them as he works his effortless charms on some prettier, younger and less experienced and thus less promiscuous female.

Sleeping with the local ‘bike’ does nothing for a man’s reputation as between himself and other men, which is where men rate themselves and of course she is no challenge for McStud who can select the cream of the crop.

In support of my views – that Alphas do not need to pursue Sluts, and thus, that Sluts are only sleeping with Betas and Omegas – I am reminded of an incident I witnessed about two years ago: I was keeping my distance as I do not enjoy appearing desparate in the presence of pretty women. A young, slim, good looking, demure and modestly dressed Japanese women (probably an 8) materialised, and was naturally soon surrounded by men – good looking women have to do little to garner attention. She ignored their attentions claiming fatigue. Less than thirty minutes later I, by chance, observed her with the local Alpha (a man who, from my point of view as a male, has only one thing going for him – Muscles) and they were snogging – so much for fatigue! ‘When can I see you again’ she was breathlessly saying in her Japanese accent, to which McAlpha laconically replied ‘Oh, I’m always around’. Alphas have options and will not be pinned down.

… and here is why Susan Walsh is fundamentally mistaken in suggesting that a definition of Slut applies equally to men and women: If one accepts that it is women who have the power when it comes to sex, then the valued commodity has to be pussy (and not dick), and it is that for which a man is prepared either to pay cash or pay by agreeing to terms limiting his freedom to act i.e. marriage. As long as the man has money therefore he can acquire pussy either by paying directly or indirectly. Generally speaking it is men as they grow older who acquire greater resources and thus they can always pay; as a woman ages, however, her SMV and MMV slowly declines it is therefore generally in her interests to marry and promiscuity is not one of those facts which persuade a man that a woman is marriagable. This is compounded by the fact that a man’s SMV will continue to rise until his mid thirties whereas a woman’s SMV declines from her mid twenties. These two factors make it always easier as a man ages for him to acquire what he wants either through prostitution or marriage. The same is not true for women, for as she ages she becomes less physically desirable which in turn is compounded by the menopause when no matter what remaining beauty she may have she loses a large part of her value from the point of view of most men, namely her fertility and the possibility of being the mother of a man’s children.

Of course there are poor older men – who are thus doubly shafted, and there are wealthy older women and wealthy women can pay for a fancy man and even marry him – but there is always the sense that a woman who has to do that is a woman who – not withstanding her natural advantage – could not secure a man, and is thus seen either as a cheater or a loser. An older man with a younger woman is not likely to be seen as either cheating or losing except if he has a thai-bride in which case he is usally only seen as a loser.

A young woman, therefore, who buys into the present ideology that there is no difference between men and women and that a woman who is promiscuous is at no greater disadvantage than a promiscuous man fundamentally misreads the situation and misreads her own position: she is like a store-keeper who to attract business advertises his wares for sale at bargain price/closing down prices when the market is still buoyant or to use another analogy tries to pass off an ex-rental car as brand new.

Sluts learn they can manipulate men using sex. Sluts use sex to extract things from men: attention, validation, affirmation, fun, entertainment, gifts, drinks, meals, vacations, commitment, even marriage. Women can become quite cunning at using men in the sexual realm. This doesn’t really require IQ or “book smarts”.

Lying and manipulation correlate with high IQ? Quite possibly true, would explain financiers and bankers and all those who commit white collar crime. Possibly politicians too, but most of them are just greedy, never really struck me as supremely intelligent.

Most here don’t say that women are not smart enough to do boring desk work. What is, in fact said, most of the time, is that women don’t generally do well when it comes to ’cause and effect’ and seeing what their present actions will achieve over their lives. They generally live short-term as opposed to long-term and thus use their sexual power in their youth without realising the actual implications of this further down the line or they just don’t care or are in fact ‘dumb’.

As for college edumacated women doing better in marriage? Might be more to do with their higher IQ rather than the crap they learn at university? Then it might also have something to do with say college educated women marrying less or only marrying high status men or a mix between the two. They’re also a rather low percentage of the total women population, so it’s rather bad to focus on them to the exclusion of the other 90%.

My personal belief is that the degrees these yentas pick up are practically useless and a waste of time and resources that could be spent better elsewhere. Even the women that do take STEM subjects generally don’t continue in those fields and instead decide to raise children full time or take up part time work. In both cases men still have to pick up the slack to allow women to live the dream.

The slut walk that Dalrock is referring to took place in Toronto,Ontario,Canada.I witnessed it first hand as that is where I live.My friends and I went to check it out.What a pathetic site to see!…WOW! The only thing that I saw was a bunch of angry young (ugly)women making a scene…a lot of them baring their breasts….and yelling and screaming…..waving placards about being a slut.Most of the people that witnessed this event were very turned off and I heard a lot of disgusting comments coming from the spectators as most people were shaking their heads laughing at the spectacle that they were seeing.It was a joke! But,not as bad as the “Gay Pride” parade that comes once a year….that is really sick!

Interesting to here it from someone who was actually there – it was clearly even worse than one imagined!

May I suggest that a fat ugly bird protesting that she is a slut, is a little bit like the ordinary guy who is keen to tell all and sundry that he has a high partner count – neither are believable, for if you are a guy who is so successful with women, you would not need to or be bothered to mention it; and in both cases the boasting is to cover a lack of interest. In the case of the slut-walkers, when a woman has to bare her breasts in an attempt to gain attention you know she has little in the way of desirability. Under the guise of rejecting unwanted advances she is actually desirous of such attention – but of course being unable to say so without appearing desparate, suggests the opposite. She is attempting to raise her SMV by demonstrating her alleged justification in rejecting men whose impulse controls are so overcome that they cannot resist her. It is thus less of an attack on males – male impulse control is generally of a high order – than an attempt to bring down attractive women to her own low level.

In the first 5 minutes of meeting a girl, I can tell if she’s likely a slut. She will say things to give herself away. If I am at all unsure, I will bang her and then talk to her about aspects of my sexual history in a very non-judgemental way and soon enough she will tell me a lot about her sexual past. Then I have a very good idea about whether she is a slut.